Bitcoin Forum

so i just got red trust cuz i did a mistake i was trying to sell my steam account or getting collateral on it on the same time and they called me a scammer and refused to remove  there negative feedback from a mistake that i didnt back in 2016

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
The Pharmacist   2018-04-11   0.00000000   Reference   This user is one of the worst on bitcointalk. Was caught scamming with a loan request, then gives multiple retaliatory feedbacks on trusted users, and now is spamming nonsense in sig campaign threads about how unfair the rules are. I do not trust this user and he should NEVER be allowed in a sig campaign.
actmyname   2018-01-01   0.00000000   Reference   Asked for a loan with collateral they were trying to sell.

Also sent retaliatory feedback with no substance.
Vod   2016-08-14   0.00000000   Reference   Asking for a $150 "loan" using collateral he is actually trying to sell. See Reference.

But the guys who are running scam bounty they never give them red trust i think they are getting paid for that to not give a red trust when a project scam
and you can check it by your self

Do you know Wapintar, Needmoney, Woshib, Wipro? I can't list more right now. They have been red-tagged from managing scam bounty. You can check their profile. No matter who is s/he, if someone abuses the system, s/he will get negative feedback. That's it.
If you have enough proof that they are biased to any bounty manager, why don't you create thread with proof? I believe that they will be removed by DT 1.

Blame the people that demanded Lauda to be removed from DT.

I'm assuming that because Laudas trust no longer shows as default others are tagging people that used to be tagged by Lauda.

Trying to get a bigger loan than the collateral is worth and trying to sell the collateral at the same time looks very scammy.

It looks like you either are trying to get more than it is worth and default on the loan (leaving the lower valued collateral) or to get paid for the same thing twice.

You posted this thread in the wrong forum - it should be in reputation.

Op Stop multi- posting, there is an edit button for a reason.

---

The feedback was left months, and in Vods case years ago.

The fact is simple, at some point you did something they deem untrustworthy. That's the system in place. It doesn't really prevent you from using the forum, but gives people a heads up that there may be circumstances they should look into/ask about before trading with you. I can't speak for them, but all you can do is try to rebuild the reputation and then ask for it to be removed; doubtful but you never know.

Generally only have to explain this to newbies.

its about me anymore yesterday I was browsing I asked them to remove their feedback and they act like very strict then i think what about managers that run scam project did they do same thing so i checked there sent feedback and there was none

Not in this case, but that whole issue has become an annoyance for marlboroza and actmyname (and anyone else who stepped up and re-tagged whoever Lauda gave negs to), I'm sure.  

Apparently OP deleted his post in the reference thread I left in my feedback on him, though whatever he had written was only one example of how annoying and untrustworthy he seems.  

That's because you haven't done anything which would justify removing your trust.

That's an unsubstantiated accusation, and this is a great reason why people don't trust you.  I recently negged both Lightlord and Lutpin for not paying their 777Coin and Bitvest campaign participants and leaving them hanging with no communication for over 10 weeks--I did remove the feedback once they finally paid, but if you think I'd be hesitant to tag a scammy bounty manager you're out of your mind. 

I actually think I've tagged at least one of them who got caught cheating with alts in the bounty he was managing.  Can't remember his name off the top of my head, and I'm too lazy to look through the hundreds of feedbacks I've left, but if anyone has the patience and the time, feel free to do so.

Still multiposting

---

They did but there is one on page 19, where they are already complaining about the requirements... and getting them wrong. I poked around a bit because I know your feedback generally has a legit reference to it.




Nothing fishy each DT has his or her reasons for tagging people. Some specialize in hunting down scam Ico's and their promoters. Some just catch the random passerby doing things they consider untrustworthy. That would explain why you aren't seeing the "rainbow of reasons for tagging" that you are expecting.

You are self admitted that you did a mistake. And obviously they have tagged your for your mistake. They have commented almost same, you are trying to sale collateral.


We will glad to know who is this managers. Make a list with proof and submit on Scam Accusation board. I have caught multiple case about Scam ICO,s and they have tagged. So if you have list than post it. On the other hand if you have proof DT are getting paid from ICO due to not tagging than show us proof. You can't claim without proof. Obviously you are lying since you don't have evidence.

It's another task when you give your collater to lender in order to gain trust and receive funds from him/her and it's another - when you try to get rid of (sell) your collateral by taking loan and then going away. If you still didn't understand, then imagine this: I own one thing that's hard to sell and worths 100$, then I offer lender this thing as collateral and request 120$ from him/her. I get money, he/she gets collateral, then I refuse to pay, apologise for this and write him/her: I gave you collateral, sell it to cover money which I had to pay but suddenlyvwas unable to pay back.
Is it so hard to understand?

Same comment. People has been banned for burst posting and since trust isn't moderated better to move the topic to reputation imo since it has nothing to do with meta.

The mafia, lol! They help this forum to be a better one. What happens here is that people like you play the victim role but it doesn’t work. We get victim stories every day, but we don’t believe them.


It is recommended not to post while drunk.

I have little opinion that there is no intention to corner who is right and wrong?
I just gave a little view of the accusation?
Whether it's true or false, I see: (Pharmacist), (actmyname), (Vod). not (Mafia) as you accuse! he works according to the rules of the forum, this person has a special team with different tasks.

---

---

I give an example:

[Lauda] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872)

[][OgNasty] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18321)[][Reference] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0)[][Escrow funds weren't held transparently, no accounting for transfers, allegedly moving funds to an exchange without investor knowledge, & when questioned refuses to divulge requested information]

---

---

[Woshib] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=798632)

[][marlboroza] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736)[][Reference] (http://archive.is/b0PO5#selection-5187.11-5187.15)[][Doesn't do due diligence. User continues to promote scam ICO's and managing bounty campaigns for them]

---

---

[Wapinter] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=527272)

[][suchmoon] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[][Reference] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4427056.msg40553817#msg40553817)[][Promotes multiple scam ICOs, rejects the idea of due diligence or responsibility]

---

---

[needmoney] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=86907)

[][suchmoon] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771)[][Reference] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4508584.0)[][Promotes scam ICOs. See reference. Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4567062.0 and others.

Doesn't do due diligence. You're likely to be scammed if you participate in tokensuite campaigns or promoted ICOs]

---

---

I understand your feelings, maybe you shed your feelings and anger. (That is your right).?
Maybe I can say to you, look for complete evidence first before spilling your anger?

---

---

Who is wrong must be wrong (no one distinguishes A and B) Rules run.

i dont understand what you mean but im talking about this guys iknow that others are good guys

In the past, people trying to take these types of loans would be first given a warning that what they are doing looks shady, and are given the opportunity to lock their request to avoid the negative trust.

Selling accounts seems to be fraught with many dangers. You risk being scammed, or buying an account that my be reclaimed. You also risk the account being made unusable as a result of bad reputation claims.

Isn't it easier to do the work to build an honest account? Having to buy one seems to be a bit of an admission of failure to me.

The Pharmacist, actmyname & Vod are actually part of the Bitcointalk Illuminati, not mafia. They already control the forum. Theymos is just a front.

Honestly, sometimes I think we should just get rid of the trust system and just let users leave feedback that doesn't effect a score, but of course this would really only benefit scammers who would then have a field day without their red paint, but maybe we should just let people be reckless with their own money. Whatever we do to try curb abuse people will just abuse that or find a way to game it so there's nothing we can really do to please everyone.

The bitcoin/bitcointalk is a decentralized system,and It simply means that there is no one who controls the system/network..

Vod,the pharmacist and actmyname are really popular members in this forum and there is no gainsaying the fact that they are working for the good of the forum trying to spot scammers and warn other users from those members,its quite a honorable thing to do

I really think they are reputable members of this forum as their trust rating shows,they have tons of positive trusts and simply so much retaliatory feedback from users whose claim hold no water

You forget to mention Atriz/ZapoCrypto



That is the root of problem that you did not understand anything. Look like you have your own notions of right and wrong and unfortunately they are not correct.
For you first negative by Vod, I guess you are trying to take loan that is worth more than your collateral and in same time you was trying to sell the collateral.

Unfortunately this shotgun type approach to leaving negative feedback is just designed to enhance the social status of the leaver by making it appear they are doing more, at the expense of simply uninformed users making simple mistakes. It happens constantly. The real problem is scammers will come back with a bought account in 30 seconds, people who made an honest mistake will just not return, leading to an increasingly scammer saturated environment.

These specific circumstances could go either way, I could see this just being an honest mistake. Often these higher ranking users have no respect for the time invested in creating a reputation and will default on destroying it rather than erring on the side of caution. After all to keep track of the user is an actual investment of time. Shotgunning negatives to make yourself look good is easy.

I completely agree with you. This really IS honest mistake.

http://archive.is/sfRXf http://archive.is/S0OeJ http://archive.is/iD8D5

Another honest mistake:


Wait...another honest mistake:


Oh, wait a second! Another honest mistake:

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


I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me.

@Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean?
Autobanned from bpip?
Autobanned from sending you PM?
German word for highway ???

It just means that the account was banned on the forum.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

The Pharmacist,actmyname,Vod.. The mafia trying to get controll of bitcointalk ?

No lol

Oh, that wasn't a question :P

Alt account has been banned because of plagiarism: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5048642.0 which means they are evading ban at the moment(obviously  ::))

---

I have questions for OP:

Why are you evading ban with alt account? Why have you sent merit to alt account? Why are you cheating bounties? Why spamming forum with meaningless zero value posts? Why did you try to sell something pretending it is collateral?

---

Oh, another honest person who lost his account duo loan default and tried to reclaim it.

This thread is full of honest people.  :D

---

Oh, another honest person who lost his account duo loan default and tried to reclaim it.

This thread is full of honest people.  :D
[/quote]

lol Well I was a little salty about that. You know when one thing get's f'ed up, a dozen more things get f'ed up with it.

I guess you confuse this with Autobahn :D

Well said.  I would even add that power hungry members shotgunning negative feedback couldn't care less about who they chase away from the community (not saying the members listed on this thread topic are doing that), so long as there is less competition for their nefarious activities (fake ICOs, signature campaigns full of their alts, etc.) and they can pretend they're being helpful.

In my opinion, they are not mafia. But even if they are mafia I don't mind at all. Ever heard of the Japanese Yakuza patrolling and helping people from disasters? (https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-yakuza-mafia-aid-earthquake-tsunami-rescue-efforts-2011-3/) The community needs some degree of order to function. As long as they benefiting the community by tagging scammers and abusers, why you complain? We don't have the official police anyway (and usually the official body will abuse you more).

And I would say it's even easier to criticize members who are actually doing something about the scamming and spamming that's rampant on the forum--a forum where scamming and account sales aren't even disallowed, I might add. 

I'm sure you weren't referring to me in the part I've bolded above, since I have nothing to do with ICOs and don't have alts in campaigns.  It'd be nice if you would actually accuse whoever it is you're talking about by name instead of being nebulous. 

Some of us actually are trying to help the forum.  None of what I do is a perfect solution, but if you've got a better one you should put your money where your mouth is and share it with the community.  Some potential customers for you and TECSHARE might get scared away, but that amount is trivial compared to how many spammers, scammers, and shitbags join bitcointalk daily. 

TECSHARE clearly has no clue what he is talking about here, thus his input on the matter can be safely ignored. OP is a good case-example of someone on the other end of the scale, opposite of "honest mistake".

You actually need (certain) strong incentives unless you want inactive, semi-useless DT members (which most nowadays are). However, some people are more than satisfied with investing countless, thankless hours just for the common good (you can easily figure out who some of these are; hint: read title). Truly bad people, those which are rotten to their core (as is the case of OP) would rather have nobody benefit from anything (and let a countless number of people get hurt along the way) if they can't be on the benefiting end of the scale.

---

Yes, OP got confused and lost somewhere on the Autobahn. ;D

wie heißt die mutter von niki lauda?

I literally said in the quoted post it wasn’t about you. Is helping the forum only what you think is the best way to police others?

You are now making the OP’s argument as anyone who shares a differing opinion is regarded as clueless. That wasn’t my intent and I apologize. I’ll politely leave the discussion now as I don’t want to have someone continue to insinuate I haven’t done massive amounts of good for this forum and it’s members over the last 7 years and continue to do so. Pretty typical that anyone who supports users who speak out against injustice is made a target to switch the focus through a bully fest in an attempt to find a reason to discredit that person.  I don't feel like playing today guys.  I'm sorry.

You want to help, lead by example.

Who is it?

I am interested in bold part. It sounds like some DT member(I suppose this thread is about DT members) is running fake ICO and/or signature campaign for fake ICO and it is full of alt accounts of particular member.

Which member is tagging people because of competition and at the same time is running or participating in signature campaign which is full of their alt accounts?

I tried to help m'y local Friend to get some money je sais un Bad situation that corpice mybe just coppied m'y auth cuz hé post another link

You talk about Me spamming arent you spamming this thread ? Cuz u are talking out of this thread goal

I see , you have so many friend to help. you are such a nice guy helping each of your friend. I think your friends are also good guy but forum moderator  decided to ban them to show that they have power.
I think forum is very unfair to the nice guys like you and your friends. I will suggest you to leave the forum to protect your self-esteem.

Okay, that's it. marlboroza remove your rating. I was wrong, and so were you. OP is clearly innocent. ::) Gotta love the hilarious (&& pathetic) leftist victim card.

Shush, back to the Bahn.

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ::) ), and as such, they reasonably do not have any real incentives to maintain a marketplace with accurate trust ratings, nor do they have the experience necessary to distinguish between someone "not knowing any better" not to do something shady, and someone who is likely to be an actual scammer (someone who will actively attempt to steal money from others, or otherwise fraudulently obtain money from others). Also, these people have little to lose in their own business when they go around giving out unjust trust ratings.

I think there's very few people who craved more power here than you and you tried to get a lot of it as quickly as you could. My only wonder is if you tried to do this for nefarious/scammy reasons and/or for purely monetary gain or not. You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing and you were even gunning for a staff position, one which you probably would have got eventually. People seem to love the default trust system here and look to achieve it and once they're on it and they have that 'power' it's great for them, but then as soon as they're removed or fall foul of it it's suddenly the worst system in the world and full of tyrants and abusers. I don't doubt that there's some people here who get off on leaving feedback, but I think the vast majority of people are just doing what they think is right and trying to protect other users, but one thing I do know is it's more hassle than it's worth and you get little in return from it and as I just said:



I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc. 

What is goal of this thread?
Is it:

a) DT members are mafia and criminals?
b) DT members are trying to control bitcointalk?
c) I received negative because I have tried to take loan with collateral I was trying to sell?
d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum?

What do you really want to accomplish with this topic? To get rid of negative trust, showing that you have changed and this was really honest mistake and at the same time you are accusing DT members of being criminals and taking bribe to "close their eyes":

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

It's not a trade system, it's a system-of-trust. Stop spewing nonsense.

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

So your argument is: appeal to authority && ad hominem filled with lies? Nice rebuttal. It's lovely how you are trying to let go thousands of abusers, cheaters and attempted scammers because it suits your biased narrative. Not similar to OP at all. ::)

---

You're the exact type that would let semi-fraudulent people appear trustworthy here due to their pajeet trades (Oh right, it's not like we've already had examples of people buying stuff from DT members that leave positive ratings for minuscule amounts).

---

It's worth placing this here again.

https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fi2ARpvsAPsg%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=a9cd2713c78e5028b7318870d0e6f6ee

I think the trust system works pretty well in most cases, and these issues of reputable users falling foul of it for whatever are probably in the minority though, it's just that when they do happen they obviously cause the most drama and controversy and then suddenly the whole system is broke according to them because of that. Requiring that a user actually be scammed though is counter-productive and does nothing for preventing scams. Sometimes people come here and their only intention is to scam and when that's pretty blatant or highly likely they should be tagged as such rather than waiting for them to scam then leave them it by at which point they've probably just abandoned the account as mission accomplished. I think the system should probably be tweaked a little and people doing tiny trades of say things like $10-50 shouldn't count for much and certainly shouldn't make people 'green' trusted. As for higher ranked users with lots of trust/feedback who end up with a negative feedback or two for some dispute or petty quibble perhaps their long-history or trades should be taken more into consideration and it effects them less or not at all unless quite a few 'trusted' users also leave them feedback (in the cases of someone pulling off a long con or whatever (and sometimes some highly trusted users he do pull a dirty for whatever reason)). Whatever we do (or don't do) there's just no way we can satisfy anyone with anything we do regarding trust and as I've said multiple times before I've never seen a perfect feedback system any where. I remember years ago on eBay when both parties could leave negative feedback, but if you ever did leave the seller negative feedback for whatever reason they just neg-bombed you straight back. People have suggested in the past that two people have to 'agree' to a trade first before negative feedback can be left by either party but we'd just run into the same problem. Just look at all the retaliatory feedback people already get on here and it'd just be the same, though luckily feedback from 'unreputable' people doesn't effect your score, but then of course people also complain about that.

I honestly don't know what we could do other than get rid of the scoring system and there's just a log of trades but I think that would just cause far more issues than it solves and make scammners lives easier whilst reputable users with lots of trades look less reputable or 'trusted' in the process.

In another thread you leveled this same statement at me personally, and I'll point out again that you don't know me and assume you know my trading experience based on what I've posted on bitcointalk (but it is true that I don't do a lot of trades here).  I would also challenge your assertion that there's some sort of minimum amount of trading that needs to be done before someone is qualified to be on DT--that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. 

I don't see how one needs trading experience to spot scammers anyway, and I would also like to point out that I mainly tag account dealers and I've given my reasons for doing so many times before. 

I have always said that the trust system here is a broken mess, and I still think that's the case.  When anyone can leave feedback for anyone for any reason, there's going to be abuse, mistakes, and everything else.  It'd be nice if there had to be a record of trade between two parties before feedback could be given (like eBay), but there are too many drawbacks to that idea on bitcointalk and I understand why the trust system wasn't set up that way.

Sure would be nice if you'd tell us exactly who you're talking about.  I can say for myself that being on DT is not something I get off on, and a lot of times it's a pain in the ass.  Sometimes there are judgement calls that I hate making when deciding to leave a neg on someone, and there have been many times where I've second guessed myself.  I do in fact try to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is why I don't tag suspected merit abusers and also why I've removed some feedbacks I've left for account sellers and others.

I tend to stick to tagging account sellers, but I do tag others if there's enough evidence to do so.  I try to stay out of the feuds between some of the older members (the Lauda-OgNasty one comes to mind immediately) and I'm not a part of anyone's "gang". 

As I said above, I wish this was a viable option but I don't think it is unless an addition to the trust system was made for "verifiable trades".  There does need to be a way to warn people about shady members and potential scammers, and it's unfortunate that the trust system is currently the only way to do it.

As usual the same characters have trouble having a discussion like adults and resort to personal attacks. I didn't even say this guy was innocent, I said I could see how he could be. Lets not pretend like you all carefully investigate each and every claim before rating. Sorry what happened 4 years ago or whatever it was does not invalidate my words in perpetuity. Especially in consideration of what the system has turned into since then (but who knew it would happen, not me!). I find it hilarious people pointing out the speck in my eye when they have a redwood lodged in their own. I have opinions you don't always agree with. Deal with it.


No, my argument is I have been here for the entirety of the system and before it, hence I have seen its degradation, and warned about much of this early on, and as usual was attacked for pointing this out, much like you are doing now.

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

Yes, you and anyone who wants to let the shady individuals run wild are essentially perpetrators. In certain scenarios, allowing certain actions to be committed can make you worse than the one who actually commits the action. There are plenty of non-forum scenarios where this is objectively correct; now apply accordingly.

The only thing I can clearly see is that you like slapping the word Nazi on the opposing side. Now where have I seen this before? Hmm.

https://i.imgur.com/EtDIfy2.png

I am sure this bait is just a lame attempt for you to distract from your own issues. BTW, I didn't call you a nazi, I said the Stazi would have loved you. Quite a difference, not like facts are important to you though when you have a narrative to push.

You know what makes the forum worse? Pushing out people before they even get a chance to learn the rules here by shotgunning negative ratings. Scammers will always return, the legit users you burn won't.

Sounds about right, don't it lad?


https://i.imgur.com/O1Q3NsL.png

It is posts like these make me wonder why other reputable people want to be associated with you. This is probably not a conversation they want to have.

Is this how liberalists respond when their arguments get subjectively, anecdotally or objectively crushed (depending on which kind they attempted to use)? "Memes are offensive"; "If you don't use the tone that I want you to, you are [insertSomeWhinyBullshit][1]"? Because that's exactly what happened here. None of the lame excuses that you've made have any basis, neither theoretical nor practical.
Your class A example, i.e. OP, is an example that confirms that the work of the mentioned users is not only warranted, but just, and more necessary than ever before.

---

[1] This isn't a research paper; grow up and learn to deal with proper usage of language. Classic butthurt-scammer play. ::)/me has lost its catnip.

Come on, it is funny how butthurt persons link to the same thread every time. It is the thousand time I see people saying that some specific persons are trying to controll bitcointalk forum. Well I can say it and my word is of greater value in the matter since I hold red trust my self but I am not butthurt to anyone, so stop linking people to this bullshit, I am getting bored, imagine the persons who see their names in such stupid threads how they are feeling. Bring solid evidence or stop the madness and the bullshit. End of story.

It is too bad that I never asked to be put on anyone's trust list, I resisted people who were suggesting that I ask to be put back on after I was removed the 1st time, and resisted requests from multiple people to create alts to be added to their DT1 trust list. It is also too bad that I initially resisted escrowing any transactions when I first started receiving requests to do so, and did not open an escrow thread until I completed dozens of escrow transactions resulting from unsolicited requests from others to me.



That is the problem. Those who lack trading experience lack the incentives to maintain a healthy marketplace, and have nothing to lose when they handle a rating unfairly, or unprofessionally. One could argue there is not even any basis to say they have or can leave accurate ratings.

---

One thing I have noticed is several instances in which negative ratings have been left for things that was very likely to be not nefarious behavior who attempt to dispute their loss of reputation only to be met with trolling and a refusal to discuss the underlying merits of the rating, and these people essentially rage quit by starting to troll and make transparent scam attempts they likely would not have made if their reputation had been intact.

Nope, not really. Sounds more like a normie trying to force a meme to me.

It doesn't seem like you've ever opened a psychology book in your life. That assessment is completely backwards.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would know that actually asking to be included on DT is a big no-no. Just like it is with asking to become a staff member. It's too obvious and the wrong way to go about it and if it was a simple as just asking then everyone would do it, and the majority would probably be doing it for entirely the wrong reasons and crave that power for whatever reason or benefits it has. As with default trust, put in the work and if someone thinks you're doing a good job they'll likely include you eventually. That's how it's meant to work. Earn your right to be on there by showing you can use it efficiently and accurately. It works pretty well in most cases, and I'm sure you were fine with it and had no complaints right up until it turned on you, but when it does those people think it's a broken system and complain the most. Again, I'm not saying it's perfect but usually works well the vast majority of times.


It wouldn't surprise me at all if you already had another account on DT back then or still even do now. You know how to work the system and it's not terribly difficult to get onto if you stick at it enough and leave accurate ratings.


Well that's something you can easily and conveniently say now and all we have is your word for it, but again, anyone with an ounce of intelligence wouldn't offer to start escrowing straight away and build up confidence slowly and over time, but most escrowers naturally fall into it due to being asked repeatedly and I think that's how it should be.


I disagree. You don't have to be involved with trading to want to maintain a healthy environment. That's like saying people who don't drive don't want or care about speed limits or safety systems put in place to protect everyone. It's not always about the money to be made from trading either. Some people just don't want a scam-rife marketplace and want to do the right thing. There is also a lot to lose. If you leave inaccurate ratings then you can either be removed from default trust or get negative yourself if you abuse the system and that can cause loss of earnings from signature campaigns etc. Being on DT is probably more hassle than it's worth, especially when you use it to try prevent scams because all it does it cause you headaches via the abuse and hassle you get.  



Again, I would disagree. Someone can be very good at preventing scams without having much trades here. Also, most people probably do have some trading history, but I don't think we should be exclusively looking for people who have done hundreds of trades before they can be considered for inclusion. Those people will get on there also, but there needs to be a mix. A system full of people just patting each other on the back and giving themselves positive feedback for trades isn't much good either, especially if they care little about trades or scams that don't involve them.  

While you maybe right about the trades, honestly I trust much more a rating from "minerjones" than I do from "marlboroza", just sayin. So probably I also think that a person like minerjones who has had a lot more time spent in the forum and done so many deals through this time it is much more trusted than a person who sent a message to me (that I don't do what I do for a signature campaign) meaning of the message in brackets, you find real one below and a few days later ,strangely joined Chipmixer  ;)
Also why should I trust more a person who almost had never any trade with anyone here compared to one who have had a lot of them like in the case of the 2 persons mentioned above.
Yeah the trust system has many flaws into it. Just pointing them out and do not want to engage in further discussion.
That while in the message ended very early  ;D

Few days later....

Oh, few days later was 2 months later. Have you been living on Mars? Time doesn't work there like it works on Earth? Few days =/= 2 months.

Few days later you say?  :D

Why is this bothering you? You have solid connection to well known scammer, and yet you didn't provide single solid proof to beat this.

People who don't know to read reference usually make such stupid conclusions. Trust system isn't trade system, as lauda pointed.

Btw, why have you changed your fake retaliation negative to false positive and then removed it?

Oh, sharing PM's I see?

What does this bold part mean?

Why don't you share everything, since you obviously like to share PM's which doesn't make much sense without further investigation?

How about this:
Have you traded with half of forum yet?

How about to fuck off and stop mentioning my name from time to time in specific topics?

Because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are very naive. I know minerjones very well, marlboroza not at all[1]. While you can come to the irrational conclusion that ratings from minerjones are better, and live in that delusion (since it is a choice), it is objectively false.  Heck, some of these people don't even properly understand how it even works.

That's exactly why. If you gave him a positive rating, he'd trust your ratings more than most others'. They're that kind of user.

---

[1] These are just names that are used as an example; there's nothing special about this case. The same applies for most people solely involved in trading (with little-to no involvement elsewhere) when you compare their ratings to those of someone who actively reviews and handles reputation issues. The latter group is also much more likely to frequently review their sent ratings, and avoid potential issues down the road (e.g. inactive account hacked).

take a look https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037540

Can you address this:


And this:

I was a noob back then in 2016 and didn't know who was selling the accounts, anyway there is enough proof for those who want to see it. I have abandoned all the accounts since February 2018 and that is why I say your rating is not valid anymore. I can continue with them if I wished for, they have negative but one of them is Legendary and as far as I know I can join a lot of altcoin bounties with a negative, I didn't do it for the specific reason I am trying to prove, I own only this account from February 2018, anyone can see that. All other accusations against me are BULLSHIT in capital letters yes.

Don't get mad just because I point out the truth as I said do not want to engage in further discussion.

@lauda, I don't care what feedback marlboroza gives me, my comparison would still stand, a person who have done lots of trades and has passed more time in the forum contributing to it in a better way than marlboroza does, is still more trusted in my opinion.

That has nothing to do with this:

These are two, completely separate things that have nothing to do with each other. You can be more trusted, but leave bad feedback. You can be neutral/untrusted but leave good feedback.

You are not understanding, minerjones ratings are much more relevant and evident and on point compared to marlboroza, they also in the majority of the times have verified references which are still active to today time compared to the other one, that is my point. Hope it is clear now.

As I sad, you are unable to read references.

https://i.imgur.com/VwA7cw2.png

https://i.imgur.com/BLwwM1O.png

Someone escrowed funds between user A and B, and someone else found out that user is not trustworthy.

---

I can do this whole day with you:

https://i.imgur.com/xxDJ3Dr.png

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

https://i.imgur.com/gMh8hw2.png

Do you want to talk about other feedback? Pick one randomly :D

Yes sir, because you are part of D mafia and are wrong. I am right; btw. what country are you in? Need to contact police. ::)

---

Is what the standard response seems to be once someone gets busted nowadays. Back to a normal-cat-being response: Good job objectively disproving his (somewhat obviously false) claims. However, someone might accuse you of cherry-picking. ;D
I do wonder exactly how many such cases are though.

 ;D

It just shows how stubborn and bad person you are, even when I have shown evident proof that I have abandoned all the accounts involved from a lot of time you still insist on leaving the rating on.
I can do it all day with you, there are dozens wrong feedback you have given to people, I just wanted to show that unfortunately you are one of the DT members who do not get back your feedback even when the other users proves you that he is not into these kind of things anymore and shows really good behaviour.

As for minerjones, please do not compare yourself with him, if I were to compare you two, you would be the "noob of the forum" against the "veteran". His contribution is much better than yours, nothing changes it, quote every possible feedback if you want. This is my last sentence here and since I am being a victim of trust abuse by you, there is no point in me not using Cereberus or any other account that I own now, even DT members have multi accounts which are both enrolled in different signatures, I can do that also. I see no use of it. I can join altcoin bounties or even signatures who accept negative rated members.

Their contributions are completely separate; don't compare apples to oranges. Minerjones is the crypto-god of collectibles. :D

You are not a victim of anything.

That wasn't my intention.

---

Have you traded with half forum yet?
I am not sure where I compared minerjones with myself. It seems you are the one pushing this for some unknown reason.

Pick one randomly.

Let me close it this way, "you are always right, everybody else is always wrong, the same hypocrisy that is going on in this forum from quite some time". My point was to show why the trust system has flaws, it was shown, let's leave it like this. You by the way are living proof of this marl  ;D

I am very well aware of that; I'm just showing what liberalists might try to counter with.

Welp, looks like since I'm out of DT now it will be either The Pharmacist/marlboroza the witch (evil wizard?) depending on which one tagged the user. :D

---

Where is nullius when you need it? ::)

I thought you left:

---

I did but you want to play and I can play all night if you want and it is funny how Lauda is playing the role of a good DT ex member when he kept me with my other account zend7 on his Bitmixer.io campaign for months , that just shows what integrity DT members have.
Back then he didn't mind.

Somehow I am supposed to know who every random around here is and the names of each participant of their alt army. Seems plausible. Some of the DT and non-DT children still got plenty to learn.

https://i.imgur.com/e0vHz2x.gif

---

Not today. Cheerio. :)

It is of not any good to your account defending now, by the way I am was about to go to the club tonight but your company here seems a better one so am having fun with you two tonight.I don't have an alt army, anyone knows my accounts, it is public knowledge on the forum  ;D

Edit: Going to the club, it is becoming boring here. See you tomorrow.

You didn't:

---

I am happy that we are entertaining you. I can't say the same thing for you. Since you decided not to go to club tonight, can you comment this:

Why are you mentioning certain things and then avoiding answer when asked?

Just had a pizza with a Mojito Soda tonight , didn't go to the club like I always do, I was having a laugh with my friends telling about this story here in the forum and just had a good time.

Now , regarding me trading with half the forum, that is not possible  for a normal human being, second what I asked was during the first time when I got the negative and lastly now please answer my only question I have for you.

Why don't you remove the negative rating since I have shown good behaviour and abandoned all accounts in which I was accused for ? For a lot of time namely 10 months. I have also done a few trades ,which thankfully all have gone well. What is the meaning of this negative which now it is non-valid in my opinion. You don't give second chances, at least that is the impression I have created for you in my mind based on your actions , regarding my specific case.

By the way , it is of no importance if you remove it or not as I got much better things to do like staying here and posting for pennies. You can send me your congratulations at a minimum since I just got certified about 10 days before in IT Fundamentals.

https://i.imgur.com/2Pj13mx.png

This is what I intend to learn now, that is why I am staying very little time on the forum. Remove it or not the negative will not affect me in anyway, this is who I am , maybe was not the best example, but since everybody talked against multiaccount, I immediately left all the accounts I had obtained illegally showing extremely good behaviour.

https://i.imgur.com/Esn2gX0.png

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

WHy ?Thats exectly what DT2 members are doing

And that's the exact same thing you are doing. 

Please add me to your revenge list bozo - I am enjoying your idiocy.  :)

they got proof that I sold my collateral ??????????? no so why i have negative trust?

Apples and oranges.

and tea is red ;)

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request.
From what i read so far, by requesting loan you should provide 120% collateral right?
So basically you paying 20% above of what you get to not make the person who give you loan in loss right?
In that case physically you can't even bring any loss to the person who give loan right? He always leave with 20% profit or even less if you pay your loan because he take less % right?
Consider person is looking for loan he's looking also for quick cash to pay something.
So trying to sell the collateral before anyone give you loan will bring the person who asking for loan less loss.
The only "bad" thing here is that selling your collateral providing valid proof that you are not looking to repay your loan and just let the person who giving the loan with the 20% profit.
So the only wrong thing i see here is that the person who asking for loan is badly looking for cash and either looking for loan or sell his collateral.
What's the idea of the red trust if the person who give the loan will end up with 20% profit from the collateral  in the end?
I know its not something good to ask for loan which you have no intentions to pay back because you also looking to sell your collateral but in the end the person who give loan leave with 120% collateral  which is 20% profit ??
Correct me if i am wrong please because its my first time talking about loans and stuff...
I never needed loan to understand the full process but from simple view of person who never needed or ask for loan in the end i always see profit for the person who give the loan.
I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust.

*I'm not here to defend or protect someone but clear for myself why people get red trust for that.

Let's see:


So while the loan is still outstanding, the "collateral" is still "pledged". If someone tries to sell the collateral while the loan has not been payed in full (plus interest, if agreed upon), that person is deemed to be either a) stupid (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person) or, b) untrustworthy (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person)...

Isn't the collateral will be in deposit to the person who give the loan or escrow so the person who needs loan can't actually do anything with it ?
So searching to sell the collateral and also offer it for loan in same place its not something that can affect the person who give the loan or i am wrong?
Soon as the escrow or the person who give the loan takes the collateral, the person who needs loan can't do anything with it because its not in his position.
So i understand so far searching for the best way to earn fast money either ask for loan with valid collateral and in same place selling the collateral is something wrong.
I guess the person who needs loan searching for the fastest way to get this money either by loan with collateral or sell the collateral.
The only bad thing leaves here that the person who request the loan proves he's not even thinking to repay his loan consider he's also selling his collateral.

how im going to sell something  that i use as collateral ? iwas trying either to sell it or get loan by that moment so if i ahve sell it i cant use it as collateral and if i get a loan i cant sellits eassy as 1,2,3

The fact that someone even tries to sell the asset that has been offered for collateral is reason enough for a lot of people to mistrust someone... for you two it isn't, OK. But for a lot of other people it is (whether you think it is "fair" or "logical" is irrelevant)... I hope you learned that lesson.

In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. I wouldn't be against ditching the whole DT system completely.. and let members make their own trust lists.

Isn't that how it works now...?  :-X

Members can make their own trust lists, and I would wager that most users who have been around here for more than a few months (excluding the signature spammers who probably don't even know what trust is) do exactly that. I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed.

I do however agree that a handful more DT1 members, and therefore more active DT2 members, would be a good addition to the trust system. Also removing the inactive members would probably be a good idea too. For example:

xkrikl (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=53416) - Inactive for 4 years. Only feedback ever left is a positive rating for one of the biggest scammers ever.
Tywill (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=120105) - Active for a grand total of 27 days in 2013. Only feedback ever left is a negative against a similarly inactive account.
sayulita (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=120945) - Inactive for 9 months. -2 default trust as potentially compromised. Total of 2 feedback left.
teukon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=14685) - Inactive for 2 years. 1 feedback left.
ioxoi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=84221) - Inactive for 7 months. No feedback left.

I agree about the low activity of DT1 and DT2 nowadays but I don't agree with removing inactive DT2 with at least the ones with 1 feedback or more.
Keep the one with 0 feedback sents can also be dangerous if their account will be hacked in the future, or I'm wrong?

Well you didn't tell us anything new, the DT circle is closed and the only people who are allowed to enter are the ones who leave tons but tons of non valid negative feedback. They don't care even when they are wrong they continue their wrong doing and do not give a fuck about what really is going on in the forum, as long as they are making money off of their DT status they don't care. This is not what Satoshi wanted, this is not decentralization and that is why Bitcoin is sinking (metaphorally speaking here and joking of course).

Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too.

Maybe you don't (make your own trust list), but I agree with:

You can go look at peoples trust list, they are public. You can see that pretty much everyone uses DefaultTrust (and some customize it, but still use DT as the base.)

I would love it if you would name names here, though I doubt you're going to do it.  The DT members I see who are actively tagging scammers actually do care about the forum, and as to the part I've bolded above I'm really curious who you think is making money from their status as a DT member.

I sure as hell haven't earned a penny since I've been on DT, and it's been mostly a headache from the complaints and the "work" I do is on my own time and is precisely because I do care about improving bitcointalk.  When I tag people, I try to get it right but sometimes I don't and when evidence presents itself that's contrary to the neg I've left, I'm not above swallowing my pride and removing the neg.  I'm speaking for myself here, of course, but none of the other DT members active in tagging cheaters are earning any money as a result of that as far as I know. 


I think DT serves a purpose, but you can't rely on it too much, and I agree that it shouldn't be scrapped altogether.  Some changes might be in order based on what you wrote about some DT members not being active for a long time.  Those are DT1 members, though, and that's Theymos's call. 

I think people ought to create their own trust lists after they've been here a while and figure out who appears trustworthy.  There's never any certainty about that, as I've seen multiple DT members lose their status for a variety of reasons, and anyone can either go rogue, get hacked, or sell their account to a scammer--you just never know.

TL;DR:


FTFY...  :P

I'd say: "it depends". Suppose someone needs money quickly, and has collateral that's worth much more than what he needs. He can increase his odds of getting money quickly by taking both paths: try to sell the collateral, and at the same time try to use it for a loan. If he's open about this, and mentions this in both threads, I see no problem with it.

To add users to DT1, theymos has to trust them. Since theymos has put much more users on DT2 than DT1, I'd like to believe this is a "trial period" for people he trusts. But then I looked at Tywill (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=120105), who is on DT2 (by theymos) and was last active in 2013. I had never seen this name before, although he's on DT2.
I know at least a few users have been added to DT2 this year (myself included), but I can imagine the burden on DT1 to make good choices.

I've seen suggestions like that before, and the recommendation to make your own list. But a new user wouldn't instantly know who to choose, and would miss out on the warning aganist obvious scammers.

I've never changed my trust list. I want to see trust the way most users see it, and I don't think a majority has adjusted his trust list. If you want, you can get a pretty good idea by checking which DT3 and DT4 members have made their own list.

Allow me to invalidate your hypothesis by taking myself as an example: I had left "only" 30-ish negative feedbacks when I was put on DT, and I don't think "tons" of those are invalid. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Trust is not binary, and DT should serve primarily to protect the newbies from getting scammed. I guess there are plenty of people around who are trustworthy enough for that, right?
It should not be a burden to add DT2 members -- why is it so, anyway? Anyway it's the outcome of DT becoming & being a political elite club.. which it wouldn't be if there were a lot more DT1's.

Yes, it depends... and it speaks for you that you actually think for yourself. Unfortunately, "a lot of people" don't...

The only way to make each member create their own trust list would be to force them to do this. Not giving a default list, but a blank one without any names.

"Ah, but the newbies will be scammed". Not if they wait enough time to know more about the forum and its members before doing business here.
As was said, the elite is only worried about their own pocket and status, the poor and the oppressed defense justify is just a excuse to keep ruling the environment.

I don't know anything about vod but the pharmacist is sniveling moron who gets destroyed most people in a debate ... he then sneaks off and says he will not answer questions or just says he will put you on ignore.
The guy is completely stupid and the fact he is DT and a merit source is laughable

Tries to bully noobs around and leave Red trust based on his observably incorrect false assumption and actual lie that the guy was claiming work as his own

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5063753.0

Plus thepharmacist has a high paying sig and refuses to remove it for 1 year if I do . He will never remove it and his main achievement here is apparently getting access to this sig campaign.... what a loser. I mean I ask him for his main achievements on this board ever and he lists this... also trying to get a real legend like myself banned with his gange of mental defectives



He is a financially motivated poster and cries about noobs that are milking the board for money.

Just find some of his recent posts on meta in my threads the guy is a broken logic mentally defective fool that is completely observable.

He also supports suspected scammers and says he wants scum like laudaM  as mods and DT and then says in the same thread he is not smart enought to understand if lauda is a scammer or not.

How is such a mentally challenged fool in any position here.... oh yes cos other imbeciles and his friends like suchmoon the idiot who states Most pre merit legends are spammers - yes  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48819869#msg48819869


, loyceV and even more retarded fool   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084723.msg48664445#msg48664445  i mean who would even say things like that unless their mind was completely broken - hes another sig spammer with his high paid sig posting idiotic trash everywhere

malboroza - also tries to back that gang of cowards up and give me some bad trust for no good reason.

many more in that gang but easy to spot

How can these couple of dumbos be the some of the most merited here.

Next they will give you red trust then open puppet accounts because they are cowards and try to get you banned

Deal with it man, a lot of people here have god complex. This entire forum is at this point a big social experiment, you can see how different people react and act while holding different amounts of power. Most don't necessarily blatantly abuse their powers but sometimes they do. It's what it is, it's a forum, who cares.

I sense a pattern here. Did all these users you mentioned happened to disagree with you at one point or another? Is that how you always "destroy them in a debate" - by declaring them "sniveling morons"? Well, if you can incorporate a gas oven and a rope you'll be right at home in the Flat Earth thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0).

I have clearly reduced your opposition to sniveling grovelling raging crazy statements, memory loss, failure to answer questions. Attempts to back track ....lol you dumb shit. No small wonder you have not done anything  of note your entire life.

Gas and rope??? your dating techniques?? no I will not come over for dinner you disgusting wretch.

Go review the threads in meta you cretin where you demonstrate all the things I describe above. You cowardly scum bag, untrustworthy gimp.

Tell me again what have you achieved on this board of real note.... how are you a legend? why will you feature in the history of CC again?

What projects are you even part of. I just see you hovering around merit giving out opinions for no reason.

Which projects are you involved with... you know real communities involving crypto currency??

I'm not. As I said, get me renamed to Newbie and I'll be just as happy. You still don't get that the Legendary title was given to anybody who posted on the forum for ~3 years. It doesn't mean any of the things that you're trying to ascribe to it.

Good, You will address me as REAL  LEGEND CRYPTOHUNTER  I will address you as newbie suchmoon. As you correctly describe and recognise.

No fuck off and give me the respect i demand from such a low achieving back stabbing cowardly jackal like you and your sniveling moronic gang.

Newbie.

I believe that at this point, it is plain to see that any further discussion would not yield any results. Many of the CH threads have devolved into pointless shitslinging at one another. Perhaps there's a better way to contribute to the heat-death of the universe.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4694028.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5040651.0
i want to know a reason why they dont give negative feedback for this guys who scam for millions and they it to others which didnt even scam