Bitcoin Forum

To avoid further derailing LoyceV's thread...

It was pointed out to me by someone - not throwing that person under the bus unless they want to :) - that OgNasty did some interesting changes in their trust list, resulting in this:


DireWolfM14 figured it out in ~20 minutes:


OgNasty came up with a feeble explanation that reeks of his typical weaselspeak:


My response in the next post.

---

Local rules: OgNasty's trust self-scratching is the topic. Whataboutism and other fallacies are off topic. Walls of text are off topic. Anti-establishment rants are off topic. This is not self-moderated but if you even think off-topic thoughts you'll be reported to the authorities.

Reserved.

---

Thanks for telling me what I think. To be clear - all 8 users having left you positive feedback and 6 of them getting into DT2 solely because of your inclusions, therefore boosting your trust score by +6, is what's nefarious in this situation.


When did you remove the 8 users that you just added?


Nice strawman but see above. It's your actions, not theirs, that are problematic.

you waped your trash trust list
you finished playing this game?

so why you interesting what to do Og ?

No, I don't think I did that. Do you have anything to contribute on topic? It's a rhetorical question, don't worry.

Nonnakip (Trust list for: nonnakip (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=69046)  +4 / =0 / -3) (76 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/69046.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/69046.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=nonnakip))) is the only one that really stands out from this list of recently included users, because he only left positive feedback to OgNasty. He doesn't have a custom Trust list either.
Including someone because he doesn't leave feedback strikes me as a bit weird, and looks like Selfscratching. That being said, +81, +86 or +87 really doesn't matter much.

This is going to betray some serious stupidity on my part, but I didn't realize you could do something like that to your advantage, i.e., making DT2 members out of those who've left you positive trust, thereby boosting your trust score.  Makes sense now that suchmoon made the accusation here, though I'm not entirely convinced OgNasty would need to do something like that--or that he in fact did include those members to benefit himself.  Only he knows.

More concerning is whether those members are worthy of being on DT2.  I only recognize two of them, kingcolex and nonnakip, but don't really know anything about them or their reputations.  Keeping my fingers crossed that the newly-christened DT2 members don't abuse their power.

Hey now...  I might be slow, but not THAT slow!  I figured it out in less than 20 seconds, and took a few minutes to compile that post...  <j/k I know what you meant>


I almost excluded you when I learned you used Theymos' bitcoin to earn yourself a hefty load of airdrops...  that you didn't share with theymos.  Not only did you not share, you didn't even tell theymos you used his money to earn some for yourself.  I still haven't made up my mind whether your club is a Ponzi or not, so I'm not taking that into account.  This particular use of the trust system, however does demonstrate that you can be prone to shady behavior.  I came to those conclusions on my own, spontaneously, without encouragement from anyone.    

When I have an issue with the way people behave around here, I call them out on it, using their name.  Cowardly calling me a lemming isn't the right way to change my mind, if anything it only adds to the evidence that I made the right decision.  

And, if you would like to challenge my ability to think for myself, lets get it on.  Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first one to fail.

I would have to agree with this point. I doubt anyone is going to have their mind changed about if they are going to trust OgN with their money based on his changed trust score.

I agree that going form a trust score of +81 to +87 doesn't seem like a huge difference, and it's unlikely sway the decision of someone looking to do business with OGN, but your statement begs the question:  At what point does it matter?  If adding +6 to your trust score through manipulation of the trust system doubles your trust score, would it matter then?  What if it added 50%, or just 10%?

Does +67 (which is what you get after ~OgNasty) to +87 matter?

The +6 boost is just the latest one.

I don't have an answer to that :P My old data on Selfscratchers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143841.0) shows much worse cases, and at that time I scratched myself up 4 points. I would update the data, but the Trust changes that happened since then make it a more work than I want to spend on it at the moment.

Maybe, it's still not even a third, and at least some of them probably deserve it.

There’s a simple solution to all this. OgNasty has a net DT1 backing of +5, it wouldn’t take much to blacklist him from DT1 if people decide he’s not worth a spot on DT1. The solution (if you feel necessary) is to ~OgNasty.

I've decided his trust contains too many anomalies to be considered truthful anymore.  This, along with his trust manipulation show is the TRUSTED thing to do, and proves he is a disgusting human being.

Has the method of counting trust scores changed?  I'm certain I've seen where a user has two or more trust feedback from the same user and the reciepient appears to have 20, 30 whatever scores reflecting (instead of counting just one from each person) - (and I'm talking about on the Forum pages, not the BPIP site)

---

---

Another example of how you can boost your personal score is to become and admin or mod and then start moving threads backwards and forth leaving "this thread has been moved to <name> section." posts.

An example of that is Lauda's early posts (into the hundreds, if not thousands) are like that. e.g. LINK (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872;sa=showPosts;start=11200) Archive [1a (https://archive.vn/Nfwtf)], [1b (https://web.archive.org/web/20201206225406/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile&u=101872&sa=showPosts&start=11200)]

Something for the BPIP team to factor in when counting such scores.

You don't need to be a mod to do that.  If I've posted in the wrong section, I move without a link.  If a post already has replies, I leave I link.

But you wouldn't do it hundreds of times though.  Or, to threads that haven't been posted in for months if not years ??

I won't mention other inactive accounts, but you included account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=28652) which isn't active since 2013. Forum members couldn't find positive ratings of users mentioned in topic or something? Nah, you made them DT2 for only reason to increase your trust score, nothing else, you should be ashamed of yourself.

User has not logged in for seven years, but they left OG positive feedback seven years ago.

OG adds them to his trusted list to boost his feedback score.

People seem to be accepting of this?

Nice example. The fact that marlbozo is such a newbie they don’t know who senbonzakura was or how much of an influence he had on bitcointalk in the early days is excused by ignorance, but you Vod being such a pathetic troll as to not know how influential and deserving of leaving DT feedback his account is really shows the lack of trading experience you have here and why you can pretend you’re an old timer, but you know nothing about the happenings of bitcointalk in the early days because you have always been just a troll and never played an active role in trading or any sort of positive interaction in the community.

Honestly, you should both be embarrassed that the best example you could come up with is literally 1000x more deserving of having their feedback in DT than either of you. The ignorance is shocking and a perfect example of why moves like this are justified. Learn your bitcointalk history.

Newsflash - Nobody here, TODAY gives any fucks what this user did or did not do in the past. ::)

This isn't about "Bitcointalk history" even though you claim to be an "expert". You always just twist words and turn shit around, such a filth-bag. Keep sending "nasty" PM's to people, it will keep your reputation higher as well I'm sure.... ::)

What does it say about a user from 2011 who keeps adjusting their trust list for the sole benefit of themselves, just to raise their already-high trust score by 6 measly points?

If I hadn't already excluded Og, I would exclude him again over this issue, as should anybody who values correct use of the trust system.

Here's Og's recent inclusions, all of which have left positive trust for Og (with the exception of nonnakip):

   achtung082 - hasn't left a trust rating since Feb 2018, hasn't posted since May 2019, no custom trust list.

   nonnakip - never left a trust rating, no custom trust list (obviously Og has nothing to gauge this user's ability to use the trust system correctly).

   senbonzakura - last trust rating left in 2013, last login 2013, no trust list

   rxalts - no problem here; rxalts doesn't reference his feedback often but not a real reason to not include somebody

   No_2 - this user doesn't have a trust list but their feedback seems to be appropriate, not a problem

   kingcolex - not a problem

   jonnybravo0311 - hasn't left a trust rating since 2016, no trust list

   ca333 - a semi-active user, don't have a problem with this user either

So only 4 of the 8 additions are questionable, 3 all of which pad his trust score; Og could have just not added those 4 and nobody would have flinched at the other 4. But because he is OgNasty, it just seems like he thinks he can do whatever he wants and it won't be challenged.

To the contingency that are overinvested in the OgNasty brand and will inevitably arrive to defend his legacy: whatever net good (arguably) someone did in the past isn't an excuse for them to do whatever they want now.

Correction: nonnakip left one trust rating in 2013. I'm gonna let you guess who was the lucky recipient.


Even if that was a legitimate reason to add someone to your trust list 7 years later... you skipped over hundreds of other influential users starting from satoshi and picked out the ones who completely accidentally happen to have green-trusted you. AKA lying your ass off.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Don't know how I missed that one. Weird how Og cares so deeply about trust scores that he's willing to undermine the whole point of the trust system in order to raise his score.

As for the people who still include Og, I'm not going to be sending them PMs on the issue or anything, and perhaps they view his contributions as "good outweighs the bad"... But he's clearly adjusting his trust list to pad his score, and its not a good precedent to set for current and future DT members.

If I wanted to trust pad I could add literally hundreds to my score. I care about expanding my network and the logical place to start is with those who I have personally dealt with and/or know in real life.

I do love how people like suchmoon openly support trust abusers in the network, but have a problem with me adding trusted members. Seems fishy to me. Like her motivation isn’t a good trust network, but excluding older users to try and empower herself. This crabs in a bucket way of thinking needs to stop. You are making yourselves miserable and wasting my time. Grow up and start building on Bitcoin, supporting those that do, or shut the fuck up.

You can do whatever you want with your "network". That's the beauty of the trust system. You just need to get kicked out of DT so that your self-scratching doesn't show up by default.


As far as deflection attempts go this is quite weak. You ran out of excuses so now it's my fault? ;D

You could try your own advice and support some actual Bitcoin stuff instead of blowing money on ponzis. But that still wouldn't make you any less of a trust abuser.

Let's address the portion of the post that actually matters:


Not really. The logical place to "start" (you've had a custom trust list for years which you alter on a somewhat regular basis, so you're not really "starting" anything) is by adding people who you feel make good use of the trust system, not those who you've personally dealt with in real life (that's what trust ratings are for).

Surprised you never learned the difference.

I just checked senbonzakura's last 20 posts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=28652;sa=showPosts) and I can only conclude it's a good thing he's no longer active because many of his posts have zero or low value (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) by today's standards. Adding him to DT2 also gave positive DT-feedback to a loan defaulter (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=50452;dt) and a sold account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=34272;dt).
If this guy is so important to be on DT, why did you wait 7 years to add him?

I had him added, long before you ever joined bitcointalk. Anyone around who actually participated in the community back in 2011 likely knows him well. Had the trust system existed earlier, someone like sebon would likely still have one of the highest trust ratings on this forum. I removed him along with others listed here after being pestered with a thread nearly identical to this one a while back. Maybe someone can dig that up if you care. I don’t. I should have added them back long ago once I noticed this new DT wave of trash desperate to erase any history prior to their arrival.

How is that relevant now?

What's the point if he hasn't been here for 7 years?

I can't find it: https://ninjastic.space/search?author=OgNasty&content=senbonzakura
Up to you if you don't want to back up your claim with evidence.

Calling people trash if you disagree doesn't make you more convincing.

Nobody is erasing anything here.

Poor OG, he thinks that he is superior because he joined internet forum before someone else did.
Who is he now?
Cut the political crap, you included those users only because they sent you positive feedback. End of story.

Lol at this thread about self scratching as if self scratching is not the only reason these scammer and filthy scumbags are on DT.


The same pack of drooling noob trash scammers, extortionists and scammer supporters giving their " opinions" on how trustworthy the forums warden and his judgement is.  You can't make up how funny this is.

The entire system is based upon back scratching / self scratching

The undeniable merit cycling where all the slobbering dirt bags above can be found on each others top 20 merit fans and recipients all found on each others trust includes and all wearing chipmixer or the same old highest paying gambling sigs. All colluding in every argument.

Yeah I really want to hear

Nutildahs opinion - the proven willing scam facilitator?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0


Owlcatz the proven extortionist and scammer supporter. Same scammer who was in on the same extortion


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5286509.0

Lfcbitcoin  the proven liar, trust system manipulator and child sex fantasist oh yeah and scammers bitch who types only what it is allowed to

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136759.0


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5264620.0

Suchmoron and moronbozo

These are chief scammer supporters as you can see by their deliberately preventing a legitimate flag warning on a proven scammers account

These are 2 dirty mongrels right there.


I'm sure the reader wants to hear their opinions on OG daring to add elder members with no evidence of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories.

The only problem with OG is he seems to be way too timid where theymos is concerned.
Removing a scammer tag from lauda was reprehensible and wrong.
That certainly was not in the best interest of the forum.

Regardless of which would I trust those that OG adds to his inclusions over every DT1 scumbag on this thread.

Yes. If you do you research you would too.

Lol at robovac. Stfu noob trash. Go spin up some raw data pulls from the servers and rank it into nice little charts for your daily merit morsels. Don't try and add support to you dirty pals arguments. You are a clear hindrance to any argument you try to support.
See how you tried to help attack nullius and I simply used your own moronic spew to drown you?

Get back to reading your kids tmans tourettes poetry whilst covering their eyes from that which they emerged.

Readers you have the links above I have kindly provided.  So you really think these people give one fuck about how trustworthy people on FT are?  Lol well they do actually. They dont want any trustworthy people on there hence why they want OG removed.

Read the independently verifiable evidence then review their " claims" of self scratching then ask yourselves why are they making these claims? What is their real agenda??

Lol at it being fine to include proven scammers, proven willing scam facilitators for pay, liars trust abusers and child sex obsessives and scammer protectors to DT but not some elder less active members who you may know well and are confident you can trust for real.

Read, research, understand then agree.

If I wanted to st in a sauna I'd go to my neighbours house.
But we both know our actions would get us in trouble.

That's why you do just enough to be tolerated.  You are lucky no one cares about you anymore.


I was there.   The only thing he ever did was give you positive tust, so you could add him to your network a decade later. 

Are you kidding? If I fart someone here makes a thread about my effect on the ozone layer. It’s actually hilarious how obsessed with me you and these users are. I get it though. You’ve all spent an insane amount of time trying to manipulate and control the trust network to bully users without consequence and here I am not giving a fuck about your demands. I can see how frustrating that is for you all, being so powerless to effect my opinion as I do what’s right regardless of how I’m effected, so you’re forced to lie through tears to the community in threads like this about honest users being added to the trust network.  :D

So Vod, how you gonna change your little algo to get you ranked ahead of philipma1957 in recognition now? I think you’ll have to do better than working with your partner suchmoon to try and bury philipma1957’s positive feedback by attacking my trust inclusions like we’re seeing here. How pathetic. People are going to start taking notice.

This is the second time you're bringing this up, unprompted. Is that why you added those users - to push Vod down on the recognition score? And to drag an unrelated person into your spat with Vod? That's quite pathetic even for a douchenozzle like you.

I was going to stay out of here.  Years ago suchmoon touted me to a thread saying I was the worst back scratcher on the forum.

I don't remember  the thread starter and I handled it be saying yeah cool whatever .  Tell  me whom to take off the trust list and I will as I don't want the

politics.

This time after reading this thread I realized I want to put mikeywith on my trust list why is that?

Because I just did a 500 dollar favor for him. I purchased 2 cpu's at micro center for 199+299 = 498 + tax = 513 usd.

I shipped to a reshipper that shipped to him. I think I charged him 20 bucks to do it.

mikeywith is trustworthy and has done a lot on the forum .

I never got around to giving him a trust because I rarely give trusts to people I have not done business with.

He could have caused me grief by saying I burnt him and sent empty boxes.  So while he trusted me to send him the right  gear and I did do that.

I trusted him to tell that I did right or to at a minimum tell nothing at all.

By the standards here I would be called a self scratcher if I now put mikeywith on my trust list.

So I have a problem with the attack being done to OgNasty as a similar one was done to me years ago in this section.

I have never been accused of cheating anyone on this website. But I was accused of self scratching.  Maybe some one could dig it up it was before 2016.

So in protest of these attacks against self scratching I just put mikeywith on my trust list.

As he deserved it before I helped him buy gear. And he simply made me more sure when he gave me a trust.

he is now trusted by me.

I could add 20 well trusted people to my list that I did business with,but I won't.

 I find this kind of thread is a bit extorting to me as I do not want to see me on top of the self scratch list. As I was years ago.

Thank you for sharing your story and standing up for what is right. Years ago I was attacked in similar fashion as stated as well. I also buckled to their demands. This is what they do, and if trusted members such as ourselves can be bullied like this, just imagine how many less established members have fallen victim to these attacks over the years so that these users can over-inflate their worth here. You should add everyone you see fit to the trust network and feel safe in doing so without some public attack campaign making all sorts of false allegations based on incorrect assumptions.

Others should take notice that this is what suchmoon and friends do. Most won’t speak up and philipma1957 is being more courageous than many realize by publicly outing this abusive and inappropriate harassment to attack anyone standing in the way of their complete control of the trust network. I’m sure there are many others who would also come forward, but they walked away from bitcointalk instead of fighting against these attacks.

I would agree with LoyceV, if this is self scratching (which I think too is it but users have the right to add people on their custom trust list, unless they are adding alt account or making huge difference, I wouldn’t care much), it’s not creating a lot of differences with their trust score while there are people who have self scratched for more than 30% of their feedback.

mikeywith is already in DT so your inclusion doesn't "scratch" you in any way. This is in no way comparable to what OgNasty is doing with his +20.

I'm sorry to hear that you see that incident years ago this way. I thought I was doing you a favor letting you know that you have an accusation against you that you may have not seen.

It's unfortunate that it has come to this comparison. OgNasty is a habitual liar. He's been doing using the trust system to settle his petty personal disputes for years. Not something I would say about you and most other top-trusted users on this forum. Even having to spell that out is just feeding OgNasty's ego. Yes, he might not steal your money. No, he can't be trusted to be truthful and have sound judgement.

Here's the thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand about the trust system, the difference between a trust rating and a trust list inclusion:

• If you trust somebody, then leave them a positive trust.
• If you trust their ability to use the trust system correctly, then include them in your trust list.

If mikeywith fits the second category in your opinion, then by all means, add him to your trust list!

What Og was doing was adding users to his trust list who haven't left trust ratings in years, left only a trust rating for Og, or never built a custom trust list... therefore, there's no discernible reason why anybody should add them to their trust list! Its quite obvious he was adding them on the basis that they left him a positive trust, and making them DT ups his own trust score, which is pretty cheeseball maneuvering.

Just because you trust somebody's ability to execute trades faithfully on-forum, it does not mean that they have good judgment when it comes to use the trust system. Someone could be highly trustworthy and a salt-of-the-earth person IRL, but they might have terrible judgment of others and leave crap trust ratings. It happens quite a bit actually.

1)  OgNasty has a history of this.   Half a dozen people are not saying something because he is doing something you described .   He did this simply because he wants me to shut up about his 6k btc loss.

2)  OgNasty has a history of playing the victim as well.  He brought your name into this thread - take the extortion up with him. 

:)

Everyone I added I trust their ability to use the trust system. Just because you may not know them as well as I do from the information you have available to you nutilduh, doesn’t mean you can accurately speculate what my motivations are.

See how fast they are burying philipma1957’s comments? That’s what they do. They even use their previous harassment of me to say I have a history of doing this and since they harassed other users into removing their old trust inclusions (like philipma1957 described was done to him) they claim I’m the only person to add these users for my own benefit. It’s ridiculous.

achtung082 hasn't been online in over three months.   :D

See this is why the internet sucks.  Touting a person would be a horse racing tip.  So if someone touts you about a thread he is tipping you off about a thread.

Thus my post was complimentary to you. Actually both you and Og stuck up for me in that thread.

 BTW that thread burns me to this day.

Wish I could find it. But that if I find it and read it I will just feel pissed off about a completely different person than anyone on this thread.



So While I picked Mikeywith and he was already on the list.

I HAVE MORE THAN 40 PEOPLE I pull off the list due to that thread.
I also requested to be removed from DT 1 list over that thread.

But Both Suchmoon and Og stuck up for me.

I hold grudges about that thread big time. but not against Suchmoon or Og when it comes to that thread.  Or for that matter any other thing.

Being here since 2012 Now has me in a funny position I like suchmoon and Og

Don't know much about Vod except he fights with Og

I received all my trust despite not having traded on this forum.  :)

Anyway can buy/sell/escrow and build up such a list.   It's much more difficult to have people trust you based on something other than $$.

On topic:   If this latest round of abuse doesn't help Og, he'll do it again to more inactive users that left him trust one time.

That it does. So let me rephrase it: sorry that I misread your post. And that you got dragged into this.

I still stand by my opinion that the situations (yours and OgNasty's) are not even remotely comparable.

For four of those, your decision is based on nothing discernible to the outside world (except for the fact that they left you a positive trust).


I don't need to know them to know they have no business being on DT.

Another way of saying this is that you didn’t earn any of your trust.


That’s because you are irrational and guided by petty emotions.


This is such an ignorant statement, I find it hard to believe anyone could take your position on this issue seriously after reading it and discovering you are a moron.

I'm cherry-picking this part of your post, because I think this is the wrong reason to add someone to your Trust list.
I believe this is the correct use of the Trust system:
So if you think mikeywith is trustworthy, leave him positive feedback.
I can think of other reasons to include him in your Trust list, just not this one.

Update: I now see nutildah said the same (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5297495.msg55785464#msg55785464) on the next page. I'll leave this here anyway, because it's still a common mistake to confuse Trust list and Trust feedback (and it doesn't help that the forum calls everything "Trust").

---

---

Challenge accepted!
First, see this:
Now tell you which positive feedback is more deserved:
Mine (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=459836) from jeremypwr:
Or montreal1's (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1608003) from OgNasty:

In my opinion, Vod has a point here:

OK, well, you've clearly run out of things to say, and I suspect you still don't understand the difference between a trust rating and a trust list. You've had however many years and never figured it out, perhaps you're simply not capable of understanding it.

All the more reason why you shouldn't be on DT.

you are fucking bastard
squall1066  hasn't been online in over 2 years
Tman hasn't been online in over 1 year
fuck your and your gang double standart


p.s to all condoms ( like as suchmoon, Loycev, owlcatz and other bastards ) that atacked Og
i ask you morons ! WHY TMAN IS STILL IN YOUR TRUS LIST?


hey fucking owlcats ! Lauda terminated and she in your fucking trust list  WHY?

Because I value their feedback. Also, it's my trust list. So fuck off, Retardo. ::)

You and I have a major disagreement over this.

My rules for trust as in a feedback and for putting people on my trust list do not match with yours.



Okay theymos is on my trust list for obvious political reasons.
I have been questioned
over buysolar
I have been questioned
over generalt

So here goes a new one


wndsnb is not on any of my lists I did a third deal involving him this week.
he has been here for 6 years. He now has some actual dt1 trust.
he has given good advice he has not abused the system

So I am going to put him on both my feedback trust and my actual trust list.

Which will be an example of self scratching. If he decides to give me a feedback.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366233.

if you look at him he has been underrated for forum merits for years
he never earned a lot of merits because he did not seek them out.

To further continue my rant I want people to understand this particular attack on Ognasty was used on me.

So I will carefully show many people left off my lists due to the attack done to me.

I don't like this attack on anyone because I have seen it done to minerjones ,myself and Ognasty.

And I think it is a form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Now if you look at what I did with wndsnb a contributing member to the forum if he gives me a feedback I look like a self scratch.

So you hinder me from rating people that I do business with.

Or you hinder me from doing business from people I previously rated.

It is wrong.

rant over.

not quite as

I repeat this affects any and all of us that buy sell or escrow on the forum.

LOL

IIRC in the old "self-scratching" accusation I was defending your right to include anyone you see fit - now that was an irrational belief that a DT1 member hand-picked by theymos would never do such a petty thing as boosting their own trust score or abusing the system for their personal disputes. Sadly you have proven me wrong in so many ways.

For the record, I still think that you should feel free to include anyone you see fit but you also need to accept the fact that you're no longer the invincible DT1 that you used to be. If you bring too much shit into DT you should get excluded like any other garbage like peloso. Regardless of how much money you haven't stolen.

This is bogus and was simply self scratching anyway. They were a tight group of back scratchers. All rushing to collude and trust abuse people to maintain some attempt of control. Merits swapped , trust includes , and who knows what alts they had or still have.

Owlskatz is clearly a broken minded fool who trusts the proven and self confessed trust abuse of proven scammers. Also part of those same scammers extortion racket as the link above demonstrates.

Want to debunk this ? Try it?

The entire merit and trust system top beneficiaries have their positions and pay cheques here on the basis of back scratching and reach arounds. It is undeniable. Self scratching well multi self scratching is called collusion. The entire DT system is built upon it from merit up.

Their arguments are hilarious. Think about it dummies dont just agree with what they are telling you DT is all about.
At a core level it is to help prevent people getting scammed dont lose sight of that fact. If not why have it at all?
The over complex mess can make you feel there is additional requirements. There is not.
Financially trustworthy people can make bad calls sure but anyone can pretend to have good judgement until they are entrenched enough to not have to any longer. That is the stage you are at right now sadly.

They are claiming of course you can have people in positions of trust that are proven scammers or proven willing scam facilitators for pay or proven extortionists? Why? Because you dont need to trust them only their judgement of others.

Lol that's why DT has ended up going from hand picked elder members with large and valuable reputations that could be removed by theymos if there was evidence of serious wrongdoing to a pack of scammers and greedy nobody newbies entrenching themselves in DT who can not be removed even with proof of scamming or serious financially motivated wrong doing because they collude to keep each other there. Their core directive is collude or be removed.

The entire thing is a fucking joke. It removed all accountability of DT current crooks. Well they are accountable to themselves and their colluding crooked pals only.

The design is completely moronic it forces collusion to remain in DT.

This you dont need to trust people just their opinions of others is the dumbest shit I've heard here yet.

OG and PMA57 being told who they can trust and put on their trust lists by proven scammers and scammer protecting newbies.
Lol well you 2 fools brought this on yourselves. It was clear this new bunch of greedy self serving scum dont want anyone on DT that can challenge their hold on chipmixer and other rev streams and milking the forum dry.

But too weak to say " hey these people are dirty greedy scum, scamming willing to facilitate scammers for pay, scamming in their auctions, extorting members and trust abusing any that stood up to them and told the truth.

Soon you will be doing exactly as they tell you or whoops put off DT then later you'll have some red tags.

The design is broken only an idiot would implement such a design on an anonymous forum where anyone can spin up alts and power them up with merits and inclusions.

DT must be

1. Elder members with valuable legacy
2. Trading history to examine.
3. Removed at once if any instance of scamming or financial wrongdoing is located at all.

They are claiming back scratching motivation because they SAY it is not enough that you trust them financially.
Yes you can monitor their feedback and later remove.
I would rather do that than add someone who is a scammer or unknown who I agree with some of his current feedback.
You will still have to monitor their actions anyway so where is the problem.
I will add someone who has been trustworthy financially and watch them any day over some that have shown they are financially untrustworthy but maybe pretending to have good judgement of others until it effects them personally. This can be gamed and has been until the critical mass of colluding scum is fully entrenched.

The entire argument they are presenting is bogus and requires constant monitoring anyway.

It is simply because they want to be able to have scamming scum on DT like lauda and tman and say okay well I cant debunk your evidence they both scammed, cant debunk the evidence they extorted but oh look they can pretend to be fair and honest when it does of effect them and they have great judgement they think we should be on DT lol.

It's strange on such a nerd based forum that there are 99.99% morons that can't field their own arguments or debunk bogus claims that pretend they are optimal that are clearly moronic.

Start picking specific examples that is their weakness they try to talk generally and bamboozle you. Then all agree with each other as if weight of numbers of agreeing but clearly wrong idios makes it correct lol.

The core issue with this forum is the " non scammers" and okay folks are either very weak or very stupid or both.
They are not up for a real fight with real scammers who will fight tooth and nail to ensure they get to keep milking the forum.

Actually this is a pretty good post. I see you have a list of enemies by reading your feedbacks.

This is why I did not want to get involved in much of this. If you look at the thread,
I see it as another way to attack people that actually do some business on bitcointalk.

---

---

this pretty much covers my position. about self scratch and why it is a loaded way to attack a person.

BTW lets see if wndsnb  whom I added to my trust list and my feedback list (today) decides to give me a positive feedback which would raise me so far he has not. But if he does I self scratched.

I will be looking at more to add to my trust list basically to protest these self scratch attacks.


I finally found one to raise my 81 to a 83

HerbPean

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=332031

and he is pretty good member who is trustable.

I also sent him a few merit simply because I don't like what was done in this thread.

This thread weakens the ability to sell buy and escrow on bitcointalk if you want to give out trust listings and feedbacks.

END OF STORY IT IS NOT ABOUT og or me or minerjones. 

It is about any using the marketplace sections on the forum.

If that's intentional, I won't stop you of course :) But I do think the Trust system functions best if most people use it the way it's intended.

Admin said this:

And this:

---

---

A very simple solution for most of the "self-scratching" drama would be to require at least 2 inclusions from DT1 to be on DT2. That would mean nobody has to decide on their own who gets to be DT2, and nobody can increase their own Trust ratings without at least someone else agreeing.

Community disagrees with you.  You trust people when you had nothing to risk, simply so they trust you back.  My trust is earned.  :)

Can you try to help peloso understand that adding TMAN to my trust list months before he left is not the same as you adding an account months after it left?

There seems to be some misunderstanding or confusion here.

Rating (sending feedback to) people who are unlikely to scam (positive) or high-risk (negative) is the primary use of the trust system and directly related to doing business here. Nothing that LoyceV said hinders that.

Including or excluding users in your trust list is different. You need to weigh whether the person's use of the trust system will have value to other users (at least to you and those who include you, or to the default trust system if you're in DT1). This isn't directly related to business, other than perhaps asking yourself "would this person's sent trust ratings and trust inclusions/exclusions be useful or harmful to other users trying to do business here".

It literally says so at the top of your trust list (emphasis mine): "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line. Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network."

Seems quite straightforward. Don't overcomplicate it.

Wrong that would centralize control more to those that are already entrenched due to their own self scratching via merit cycling.

The design is a clusterfuck that is undeniable. Hence why you have a bunch of newbie scammer supporters and shady scum thinking they can tell the elder members who have huge trade histories and zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or supporting those that do in their past here what they can and can not do. lol

There is zero reason to follow guides or interpretations of guides to a system that is fatally flawed in the first place. It is entirely sensible to add those that you view and financially trustworthy and have proven to be.

If these people have proven they are trustworthy financially they have to be monitored like anyone else. But that is a better starting point.

The system is over complex and a total failure.
Self scratching and forced collusion is the basis for gaining entry to DT and staying there.

DT core scum self scratch in every way conceivable. They simply want OG out. Since he is not afraid to tag them red when he sees scamming. They dont want that. The same for anyone.  

Yes the trust system can be used to damage people who conduct legitmate honest business here
That is the major flaw. Lol it is a protection racket.

That should not be possible.  It is easy to fix.

Delete red shit tags and make flags 2 and 3 the only warnings.
Watch being on DT lose its shine.
People want it for personal power and to milk the forum.

You want a preemptive flag 1 then make sure you can provide strong evidence the person is setting up a scam or deliberately engaged in directly financially dangerous behavior.

You elder members should have always supported this because it is the only way to stop DT being seen as a place from which you can control free speech via prevention of paid2post, trading and legitimate business and also scam with impunity by blocking warnings against you and scaring people from speaking up. Also mutual red tag removal arrangements.

The trust system is full of holes. It is literally dangerous and facilitates scamming from inside DT and dilutes legitmate warnings for real scamming and financially motivated wrongdoing

Read it understand it and start to act.  If you think you can debunk any of it then try it.

They want OG off and will keep chipping away. Eventually he will be gone.
Then they have no person there to stand against them.

People like robovac and pharmacist although not scammers will just go with whomever they think their sigs are most safe with.
Currently it is the inner scum bag core.

Their back scratching has entrenched the inner core too deeply. So the serious elder members need to get to theymos to tighten up the warnings.  

Take away their subjective " punishment " system and make them abide by objective transparent standards and DT is no longer a meal ticket it is a legitmate warning system to help prevent scamming.

Speak up because one day they are coming for you.

I am not everyone I added fits both definitions.

They deserve both positive feed back and they are trustworthy as per the definition of the trust list rules.

I added
mikeywith
favebook
wndsnb
HerbPeon

to my trust list today as all of them have done ✅ by the rules of adding to a trust list.

all of them are decent members that don’t do bad on the forum and they do a lot of good on the forum.

one of them has positive feedback for me. and it boosted me to 83 from 81.

I was very careful in reviewing them.

Now if you look at my received feedback There are a lot more that I could add to my trust list.

that look good enough to be trusted.

that is my major point about the concept of attack against og in this thread 🧵

it was used against me it was used against minerjones and it can be used against anyone that puts in any name on their trust list.

In fact I could put anyone on my trust list that is well qualifed and if they ever ever ever ever give me a positive feedback my 83 moves  to 84 and i self scratched.

I ask a simple question can anyone go back in time and find my old trust list that had HerbPeon on it back in 2017 or 2016. can anyone find if I am lying or telling the truth about my old trust list I pruned it extensively due to the attack thread on me.

if you can clearly show the history or my trust list every removal an addition can you do it for every member?

If you cant have a transparent clear verifiable trust list history for every member doing these hit threads are bs.

btw does anyone have an issue with the people i added today?

There would be no attack on you OG or anyone if DT was not seen as a meal ticket.

The fix is very easy. But nobody cares about supporting it until this DT self elected bunch of noobs comes after them.

The trust system needs to be a reliable weapon against scammers not a weapon against anyone that doesnt follow what DT members want.

No point trying to appease them and hope they wont attack again later.

Take the ability of attacks on honest members away for good.

There is no place for warnings in any trust system for people that have not scammed ,attempted to scam or strongly appear to be setting up a scam. Whilst there is a possibility to damage others here on other grounds the trust system is fucked.

Nobody would care about being on DT if it was not a meal ticket.
If you had to meet a transparent objective requirement as mentioned above to damage someone's account then all the holes in the trust system and the boot from the neck of free speech vanishes.
Warnings are not diluted and it works way better. You could still prevent legitimate warnings from being inside DT but they could not scare people into supporting them or scare people from whistleblowing

The very fact current DT do not want transparent objective standards is clearly a very bad sign.

Wake up stop appeasing and trying to fit it with these dirty scum bags.

When self scratching doesnt remove OG there will be " another " reason or attack.

What you've done is fine, and does not compare to adding inactive and thieves to people you trust.   But back on topic...


OG does good:  OG / RCM flagged a user for scamming a couple pennies by pulling out of a deal.
OG does bad:  OG says he "lost" over 6,000 coins, but he probably stole them.

In his case the bad far outweighs the good.   His actions have been self-centered for three decades.

I'm still not following how this hinders your ability to do business or use the trust system. You did everything right. End of story?

Even if you get excluded for this (unlikely) - so what? As long as your trust list works for you. Same with OgNasty. If his trust list makes him feel happy - good for him.

While I disagree with your "show and tell" here to include users just to prove something to us, I don't see it as equivalent of OgNasty including accounts that have been inactive for years and have no value to anyone other than to boost his own trust rating.

I'm quite surprised that you don't see the difference and insist that this is somehow an attack on anyone doing business. It's not. OgNasty can do business perfectly fine without being in DT. I'm not suggesting he should be labeled as scammer. I'm saying his judgement is not to be trusted. I have distrusted OgNasty years ago and I suggest anyone who can objectively look at his actions should do the same.

Call it an attack if you want but I consider it my responsibility to point things like that out... it's everyone's own decision what they want to do with it. Should they choose to exclude me instead that's perfectly fine too.

Like I said we can agree to disagree. My point is I was attacked Og was attacked minerjones got grief. Basically This self scratch can be used retroactivly against anyone with a trust list.

unless they just do defaultTrust.


here is some of my trust list.

theymos
OgNasty
-ck
buysolar
TookDk
suchmoon


added today

wndsnb
HerbPean ------- I gained 2 points with this. This was removed back in 2016-2017 due to the attack thread on me.
mikeywith
favebook
DefaultTrust




lets argue I add

  NotFuzzyWarm to my list he has been a good member and worked well with a lot of people in the mining section

So adding him to the trust list is not unreasonable.  But if he ever gives me a trust it looks like a self scratch.

So I get put in the position of either do business and never list anyone to the my trust list.

Or work my trust list and never do business with anyone here.


To not see what I am writing as a simple truth is what it is.  It is also how the attack thread on me showing me as 3x that of anyone on the forum was created.

I am not defending Og here in this thread. I am attacking the method being used to attack him as

McCarthyism

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

and stating it should be a banned attack method on the forum as it is a threat to anyone that list someone in their trust list.

Feel free to attack Og in other thread with other methods. but this type of attack is wrong against anyone at all even it they are guilty of it.

Since you can frame any one as a self scratcher if you have access to their trust list.

Look you are making this too complicated.

1. There is undeniable independently verifiable evidence of scamming.
2. There is clear undeniable evidence they tried to scam.
3.  There is strong independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates all the hallmarks of setting up a scam.

Warning is given the point it is has to be financially motivated and have strong evidence that can be analysed.

Where the DT is a mess is where anything you do can be used to take away your paid2post or damage conducting business on the subjective view of self elected DT.  It doesnt have to be financially related in anyway.  They will invent some mental gymnastics that say you drink lemonade or call them cunts that makes you a scammer or prone to scamming.  

Tie it directly to the 3 points above all the trust systems largest holes and treating DT and meal ticket is over.
Merit sources cycling and back scratching themselves and each other will still place the same people on DT but the power of DT to cause damage is mostly over for good.  They can still rely on scumbag campaign managers to say oh we only want people with lots of merits and who are on DT but free speech and free trade will be unhindered.

That's the best you can hope for now. Because theymos obviously simply didnt want to be responsible for hand picking DT and legally I can understand that. But make the threshold for damaging peoples trade and paid2post transparent and objective.

And really kick the shit out of abusers and make an example not cry to other DT to exclude Man up and kick them off at once.

No room for scammers no room for DT protection racket abuse and scamming with impunity or red tag trading.

It will be hard to prevent stuff like lfcbitcoin did aka giving people trust includes who help you block flags on your sponsor ?  But there should be no flag without meeting the above 3 points anyway.

The type 1 flag aka preemptive is always tricky but must have a direct financial aspect to it.

You dont have to worry as much who is on DT if they are not allowed to be entirely subjective and self serving.

There is no reasonable counter argument. If there is bring it now.

The entire trust system is rooted on self scratching and collusion. Crying about OGs self scratching here is bogus and laughable.

If these people he added had any kind of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that would be different.

This is the accusation thread - did he mention your name here just to deflect?

What you did is not the same as OG.  I also am not aware of years of you lying/scamming like I am with OG.   

If you would like to compare your imagined persecution, can you start up another thread?

Not sure I get that part. If he gives you a positive rating later? That's not on you. That's not what's being discussed in this thread.


Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list.  I have to trust the list keeper.

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

with out a new thread called my trust list revealed.

this record is what is on the link for me  it is out of date. as I added 4 people.


philipma1957 Trusts these users' judgement:
1. theymos (Trust: +29 / =0 / -0) (6968 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. OgNasty (Trust: +81 / =4 / -5) (DT1! (6) 1080 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. -ck (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (353 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. buysolar (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. TookDk (Trust: +31 / =0 / -0) (54 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. sidehack (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (600 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. Biffa (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (146 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (4956 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. DaveF (Trust: +25 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (8) 1052 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. HagssFIN (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (470 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. generalt (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. LoyceV (Trust: +27 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (54) 6200 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. frodocooper (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (154 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. Hockeybum (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (31 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. WhyFhy (Trust: +3 / =3 / -1) (97 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. MoparMiningLLC (Trust: +26 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (3) 706 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. DireWolfM14 (Trust: +18 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (13) 1895 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Now I added my four as I mentioned.  and herein lies the issue.

all proof of all trust lists are in the hands of loyce and he can use it to attack some one as he sees fit.

how do I know when someone added a name to his list? yeah I mentioned my adds to my list.

How do I know when Og put his people on his trust list when only loyce keeps the record.

The names listed in op first thread could have been their for a long time months and months ago. Loyce could go back pull the names off and add them back for just the last week.

So if you do both trust list and feedback you are forced to quote and print everyone every done in a new thread.

You're actually the first to mention this. You're right, theoretically I could edit my Trust list viewer. But I'm pretty sure someone will find out eventually, which would destroy my image as "Switzerland".
You can verify the data using https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz. This is theymos' trust data dump, which I use to create my weekly update.

Yes I could. No I didn't. Feel free to convince yourself by randomly checking some of the profiles each week.

Theymos updates "trust.txt.xz" once a week (Saturday early morning in my time zone), so unfortunately I can't provide more frequent updates.
Note that theymos' weekly data dump only shows Trust relations for users who have at least one post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5186374.msg52522028#msg52522028). So Nuked users don't show up.

If you wipe your Trust list and remove DefaultTrust, you can include just one person to make your Trust list reflect theirs. Don't do this test if you're on DT1 though, create a new account if needed.

For DT1, there's BPIP's DefaultTrust Change Log (https://bpip.org/TrustLog). I think it checks every 10 minutes.

I know people say I'm an AI, but I really don't have time for this :P
Feel free to archive old versions though.

Lists shouldn't matter.

You should be free of fear on this forum unless you're a scammer or deliberately work with or protected scammers
Then you should fear.

Whilst fear can be induced on any other ground by other members here the forum is a failure.
This is simply 1 excuse to attack OG.

Fix the system not implore or beg these scum bags to accept your motivation for your choices.
It's a temp fix. Fix it perm.

Self scratching or not wont really matter as much. Its only an issue when they say others self scratch anyway.

Except that if LoyceV did that he'd probably end up excluded and red-trusted since the data can be verified independently, e.g. here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt

It's just more convenient on his site.

Phill, the data LoyceV uses is public, theymos makes it, in reality, even theymos can't alter it, because these records are just images of our inclusions, so if theymos' data mentions that I included member "xyz" last week when I have not done that, I would have complained and Meta would be full of it.

Loyce puts that data into an easy to read/use format, and then it's up to each and everyone to "interpret" that data.

While everyone can include/exclude whoever they want, we as a community must set a bit of standard to it, if not then these numbers that show on our profiles will become meaningless.

Take a look at my feedback

https://i.ibb.co/fCKBXZM/feeback.png


What I can do (assuming I am in DT1) is to include all the members who left me that positive feedback and my score would be close to 40+ instead of 2+, I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted, but +10 isn't the same as +100, I only have 2 visible feedback despite having traded tens of thousands of dollars in this form but it so happened that the products I trade are not in the interest of DT members which is fine but is it ok to alter my trust list to make my feedback look better just because I think I deserve a better score?

There are many times when you include someone and by coincidence, you increase your overall rating, but that is completely fine, doing this on purpose however isn't.

One thing I didn't like about being in DT1 was this very problem, I even mentioned it to Theymos in the same message which I sent to ask him to blacklist me from DT1, I want to be able to add some people to my trust list without directly making them DT2, but I knew my request was not going to go through and then with all the DT drama which I prefer to stay away from I decided to set-back and relax, being on DT2 only is a (+), you know your feedback on those scammers are going to help a lot of people, and you also know that you won't be accused of self scratching or any other thing similar.

Now back to the accusation, there is a chance that Og added those 8 members for the sole purpose of strengthening the trust system by adding members that have good judgment, there is also a chance that he did so to increase his ratings, it's up to everyone to decide and act accordingly.

On a side note: I only chimed in because my name was mentioned a dozen times in this thread and because I felt like phill could use some explanation. :-\

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

7 years ago he proudly announced he paid back 1% of a total loss of 6,500 btc.   Now he's posting like it never happened, and even denying he ran that pirate passthrough ponzi. 

Now you may say ok he lost more than anyone ever has, but that was many years ago.

Then he held 500 btc of forum funds, got paid 6btc a year to safeguard them, instead he treated them as if they were his own and stole value from them.

Fast forward to last month - a users pulls out after he finds out OG is the escrow.  OG loses pennies (due to his own reputation) but still flags and leaves negative trust.

So NO - OgNasty cannot be trusted with large or small amounts.  Anyone who says otherwise, or says I lie about it, has a political agenda.

Not totally on topic but I'll say it. I don't trust him. Using the treasury's private keys to claim a shitcoin without telling anybody about it is pretty damn untrustworthy. You can say whatever you want about me, I've never profited dishonestly off the forum, especially to the massive tune that Og has... or as he calls it, "building off bitcoin."  ::)

I would probably trust him to not steal money in broad daylight but I'm not so certain that he wouldn't do it if he thought he could get away with it, like with that airdrop.

Which means he's probably fine to use as escrow in public deals except I wouldn't recommend him to anybody whom he doesn't like... not so much because of possibly losing money but because of possible harassment and other shenanigans. Come to think of it, even if you're on good terms with him now, he'll shit on you later if you stop praising him. At one point he accused ibminer of stealing because ib said something unfavorable about nastyfans.

So yeah. Why bother. Just use another escrow who doesn't suffer from narcissistic delusions.

Dozens are saying? I see the same bunch of people that have scamming, willing scam facilitating for pay or protecting scammers like you vod.

Now had you not have been found to be protecting 2 proven scammers before and not commenting at all when lauda used escrow funds to do the same thing you're accusing OG of and then adding them to you inclusions then perhaps you could be taken semi seriously by the objective reader here.

Well then you wouldn't appear to be a hypocritical scammers supporting coward that even admitted you dare not previously exclude lauda from the trust system or red tag them out of fear they may use the trust system to ruin your account. That's exactly the problem with the trust system and what makes it very dangerous.

You are all missing the point.

Whilst it remains possible for any member to ruin your account where there is zero evidence of scamming,  attempting to scam or setting up a scam or any financially motivated wrongdoing at all then the trust system is DANGEROUS..

Lol at this self scratching / back scratching being just another hole in the system.
It is largely irrelevant and totally and utterly the foundation of every members route and election on to DT

Everyone is self scratching and colluding it's part of the design. Merit cycling is the first round of self scratching and collusion that enables round 2 of the same self scratching collusion on trust inclusions exclusions.

They are just making up illogical garbage that favours their position.  
It's not about the person being financially trustworthy it's only about their opinions of others lol

Still they will trick you into defending your actions per the terms they claim are the rules. They dont want you to recognize the rules themselves and design is a dangerous design that placed them where they are now and has entrenched them with the power to crush free speech, crush everyone's ability to paid2post and trade freely on their whims, and see they are paid at the highest rates on this forum for doing so.

Lol so by all means keep falling for this trick. You dont need to appease these noob trash greedy sig spamming scammer supporters.

You need to lobby theymos to require a transparent objective standard for damaging a persons account.
They are either meet the 3 criteria above or they do not.

This will not fix the dumb self election process to DT and will not stop them milking the forum.  However it will stop them crushing free speech and  it will stop them damaging innocent persons accounts and threatening people , and it will stop the trust system being diluted with bogus warnings of financially motivated wrongdoing because someone said something they didnt like.

Dont bother defending yourselves on their bogus terms.
Those terms are entirely dangerous and counter productive because to operate correctly within the system without breaking the rules is dangerous anyway lol

Sadly most people are too stupid to understand the clear implications of the system.
If so just take my word for it or try to debunk my points.

Just use another escrow says suchmoon? Oh who's would you reccomend?


Lol you heard it here first folks nutildah of all people
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

Doesnt trust OG because he did the same thing lauda did while escrowing but he didnt mind lauda doing it. Actually he had lauda on his trust inclusions for ages. Maybe because lauda was self scratching nutildah. Lauda was hunting down people who had put their accounts up for sale. He was tagging them. When someone pointed out nutildah had put his up for sale. What did lauda say??
There is nothing anyone can say that will make me give nutildah a red tag or words to that effect.  One big long back scratching shitty mess is what the trust system is.

So think about that and see how that sinks in.  

Those hiding away watching that double standards and dirty antics of DT1 are equally as bad.
Cowards and weasels and they will eventually come for you or you'll have to be their bitch forever.
Ask PN7 what that feels like.  Getting some crumbs as long as you toe the line.
Yuck.

I highlighted the lies in red.  LOL.  This is why trusting Vod either means you are mentally challenged or have an agenda.



More lies.  It was my fiduciary duty to make sure that alts were claimed.  I did so.  I then only took what theymos said I could have.  It is not my fault if he failed to keep track of what alts there were and didn't bother to ask me for a summary before gifting all the remaining alts to me.  I actually think his response on the matter without even discussing it with me was immature and think he should have appreciated my efforts and taken some personal responsibility on the matter.  You saying it was untrustworthy of me or dishonest in any way after theymos himself stated it wasn't is something only a moron or a boy with an agenda could do.  However, what theymos did say accurately was that leaving Vod red trust is appropriate, but I guess you missed that or just haven't red trusted Vod yet?

---

EDIT:


Hey look, another day, another honest user who has been a positive participant in the community for years who would rather leave bitcointalk then deal with the lies and harassment of these users.  People have been asking for years what is happening to all the long term use case creators in this community, well...  Do you still have to ask?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5298464.0

and you have admitted to my only problem with the attack on og you can doctor the evidence.

edit:  to be clear this attack on this thread done against Og  is done with evidence that may or may not have been doctored.

Which is why I butted in as the same attacked method was used on me and could be used on anyone on the forum.

Only theymos  can refute or say the info is true.

See?  Anyone who remembers his scam is called a liar, even though he admitted he paid out a 1% insurance fund of 65 btc.  

Do the math if you are not mentally challenged.   OG has an agenda.  




People may have believed that if Theymos hadn't called you "tacky" for stealing. 

I will agree that is is Theymos's fault for trusting you, but how could he have known?




Loyce cannot doctor the evidence.

This being the real reason Vod continues to troll me.  His lie-filled attacks on me are the only thing that give him relevance after nearly 10 years of participation here.  I don't think when all is said and done that he will be remembered kindly.  

I should also add that these creatures abuse the trust network as a team and so they utilize attacks like this "self scratching" nonsense because they know it cannot be used against them, since they are all working together to manipulate the trust network.  Actually not a bad approach.  Attack people for acting as honest individuals while giving yourself immunity for abusing the network as a team.  I will say as far as attacks go, this is one of the smarter approaches these creatures utilize.  Users like myself an philipma1957 were even fooled previously by it.



Obviously I wouldn’t make up a lie like that. I’ve never lost anyone’s money. Not a single satoshi.

I'm just refuting you calling me a liar.    You said you lost 6,500 btc, now you are saying you didn't?

Your story just changed from Theymos knowing the truth and trusting you in your ponzis to Theymos being immature and irresponsible.

I don't lie, Mr. Ogn, and things will only get worse for you if you continue to use me as your deflection.


Silly OG.  You've already posted you paid out the 65btc insurance fund.  I leave this here as proof you don't have a good memory.   Liars need a good memory.

You are totally correct in this analysis. What fascinated me most about this whole DT farce was what initially seemed to be outrageous claims by CryptoHunter / bonesjones / laudanum on the surface turned out to be 99% accurate, 1 by 1 he identified and dismantled the cultist signature abusers;

there are so many threads now documenting the hypocrisy and shameless double standards of the DT1 cult that it's not even interesting to talk about anymore, most people have voted with their feet and abandoned the forum, unless they were long standing members of a lucrative signature, in which case they are merely tolerating the broken forum to get the monthly income...

For me the only remaining question on this issue is: where do staff and @theymos fit in to all of this ? Surely this must be far from the vision for DT that admin first envisioned:


There is no credible threat of retaliation, if an independent member discloses and proves the corrupt nature of any cultist from DT1, he will immediately be excluded en-masse and get a few frivolous red ratings for good measure so that the signature revenue abusers will continue to have artificially green trust sheets under all circumstances. They are getting paid a few k / month to continue colluding and masquerading, there is very low chance of such deep-rooted and incentivized collusion to be overthrown independently unless theymos pays a few k out of his own pockets to motivate the honest members to political activism  ;), either that or he has to personally step in...


It subtracts greatly from the prestige and future potential of Bitcointalk that admin seems to have abandoned all efforts of fixing the broken systems of this forum for a long time now...

Getting rid of signatures will stop most of the problems you describe, including the negative trust you left me.  

Problem is, I've never worn a paid sig, as I'm happy with my financial status.  

You'll have to think of a new excuse why I fight scammers like OG and don't get paid for it.  :/

Hey phillip, you've picked the wrong member to base your trust on. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg55798287#msg55798287)

theymos said he did not have a problem with Og taking some forked coins.

it does appear he did take some forked coins.

now since theymos said he did not have a problem with that,

do you red tag theymos and say Og gave 1/2 the forked coins to theymos and that they were in cohorts .

You should based on what you say.

which is why you should let it all lie buried or expose that theymos let him take those forked coins why?

did theymos grab a cut?

theymos has said peace should be made over this. so is he the villain not Og?

btw the only person that verifies loyce list is theymos.

So the reality is.

loyce could be suspect over the self scratch list
theymos could be suspect over the self scratch list.

Og could be attacked over and over and over again by

vod,suchmoon , loyce because theymos does not want us to question him about allowing Og to take the forked coins.

so basically

vod
suchmoon
loyce
theymos
Og

all have  compromised interests in the self scratch thread here or in the forked coins which theymos allowed
so this is why I usually stay out of this.

A ) I have nothing to do with the forked coins.
B) I don’t have enough info to answer those points I bring up.
C) In general bitcointalk has helped a lot of people and I don’t want to attack it or its members
D) all but vod are on my trust list he doxxed Og so no trust.

I really wish this entire line was stopped by now as it always goes in circles.

OG also doxxed Vod many times, called him a pedophile and tried to get him beat up.   ;)

But you can still trust him cause you traded with him?  

I guess that makes you a hypocrite to me - too bad since we never had any interaction.   Take care.

Edit:  I had you on my trust list for some reason.  You were probably a good guy.

I'm really puzzled why you keep saying that. All data that LoyceV uses is public. The above is simply not true. Anyone can verify it. I don't think theymos verifies anything that LoyceV does, he just dumps the data weekly for anyone to use.

---

Let's stop with the unrelated stuff. Probably partly my fault for debating various tangents. Vod, you have multiple other threads for your dispute with Og. This is about OgNasty's trust list self-scratching.

I know you started it with that agenda, but it has actually correctly been identified as a thread to discuss your cultish trust usage and how it has enabled you to use this “self scratching” attack on reputable members multiple times over a period of years in the past as a way to exercise more control over the trust network than you deserve. Tell me, is that behavior deserving of a negative trust rating or just exclusion from the trust network?

I'm quite certain that if I start a thread I know what the topic of it is. You can start a new one if you don't like it.


What, sending a harassing PM doesn't float your boat anymore? Do whatever you want, sparky.

A member has for years now been attacking trusted users and forcing the trusted users to remove inclusions for feedback that existed prior to them joining the forum.  They have done this in order to degrade the value of longterm member's earned trust ratings as a way to appear more valuable to the forum and have more influence on their own website which judges users on just these sorts of ratings.  

Conflict of interest?  Sure.  Shady as fuck?  Yup.  Dishonest?  Sure seems that way.  What is the appropriate response to such a user suchmoon?

~OgNasty

Well, also this:

https://i.imgur.com/45gQYA8.png

Done!   Og's trust went from (about) 80 originally, to a high of 86 today, and now down to 75.  I look forward to seeing what happens as more people understand how he's been padding his trust.  My 36 actual trust score could be 10x that if I cheated the way he did.

Excellent work by the OP to point out this obvious abuse, as well as flush out a few more rats.  Obviously, the scum is trying to deflect.   I guess he chooses you because BPIP makes it so easy to catch abusers.  

This thread isn't even based on my data:
It's based on BPIP (https://bpip.org/TrustLog), which (I think) is currently owned by suchmoon and ibminer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213618).

If that would be the case, don't you think OgNasty would have pointed it out already?

For current data, I gave a few possibilities (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5297495.msg55791061#msg55791061) to verify it. If you want to verify what happened for instance a year ago, I don't know if theymos still has snapshots of the weekly Trust data dumps. I know the forum doesn't store any records on editing posts within the first 10 minutes, so clearly not everything is preserved forever.

I'd be honored if theymos takes the time to verify my Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0), but I don't think he does.

I'm not sure what this means/implies.

Agreed. I've suggested a few times that OgNasty and Vod should just get a beer together, and find common ground. Or ignore each other.

OgNasty never took Forkcoins without theymos' permission:

so whats fucking you and your fucking friends  bastards discuss Og trust list ?
this is his trust list and it's none of your business you idiot

fuck off your self


you are not commynity, you are scammer )
just one of a thousand scammers and shut op your smelly ass

no it is not the list can be played with , Loyce even admitted to that in this thread.

Like I said this goes in circles.

and

my trust list does have

theymos
suchmoon
OgNasty
LoyceV

vod was left out for his dox of Og while Og was holding more the 1 million usd worth  of the forum's coins.

do I think Og added the names yes I do do I think it has much meaning no I don't.

Technically both LoyceV and ( @suchmoon and/or @ibminer ) have altered the entries on their reciprocal sites - with good intentions I'm sure.

In LoyceV's case just recently there was the weekly trust list which was a duplicate of the previous week owing to the weekly run being done *before* theymos had run the list.  LoyceV then deleted the entire week's results and re-ran the sweep hours later (thus giving different results)

In the case of BPIP I'm not sure if it was suchmoon or ibminer on the edit button, but entries have occurred then been removed such as has occurred over the last (about two months) in the Trust Log page (https://bpip.org/TrustLog) whenever a user removes their DT trust list - it is shown (I might be paraphrasing here) "the user has lost the ability to vote for DT2..." and then a long list of "X" no longer trusts/distrust this/that user" (again, another paraphrase)...  Those entries are then removed manually, or at least they were done manually at one point...

I'd say it's inevitable. It comes with root access to a server. Just like theymos can edit any post I make here and do anything he wants to my account. He can even make it look like I edited it myself.
I trust him not to do it though, and that's enough for me.

I thought of that, that's why the new version had a later time stamp. Just in case anyone links to the old version: it's completely gone instead of changing it.

I don't think fixing technical glitches is a problem for trusting the creator of the tool. It's actually a good thing.

Isn't that editing what is displayed, and not the data itself?

When you purchase twenty small items and they are grouped together on your bill as "sundries", do you think the seller is scamming you, or just presenting the data in a different way?

This is due to a issue in my original code -no conspiracy theories here.   I compared the previous list to the new one blindly, which in the case of DT removal, made a lot of entries change.  Fixing that issue will involve non-trivial coding- they will need to remove the entries that were not explicitly done by the user.  In the meantime, if they delete erroneous entries that do not affect anything, it saves time, makes the report clearer, and doesn't suggest one person removed another when they did not.

(This is an off topic reply - I will not respond to replies)

Back on topic:  OG lied about not losing 6,500 btc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg55798287#msg55798287).   Is he being as honest about his DT inclusions?

Imagine standing behind Vod's ridiculous lies like LoyceV and suchmoon do while including him into their trust networks, and then trying to call out others for adding honest members with legitimate feedback to the trust network.  Is it clear yet that the goal for these users isn't an honest trust system tied to real life happenings, but to have control over who can or can't be in the trust network based on their own emotions?  Imagine wanting to exclude one of longest the most active trading histories on the forum because of honest positive feedback, while simultaneously including a user like Vod with now a very long verifiable record of lying (see recent example above) based on nothing but his own delusions while drunk.  It should be clear from this debacle that the trust network is not functioning as intended and needs some intervention from theymos.

Deflection is all you got. I don't give a toss about "control" or whatever it is you're fantasizing about. I have always encouraged other users to exclude me if they don't trust my judgement, don't like my opinion... fuck, even if they just don't like me saying "fuck" too often they should go ahead and exclude me. And unlike you I don't retaliate, neither for trust exclusions nor red trust ratings.

You on the other hand - clinging to the imaginary "most trusted" title with all that you got, trust system integrity be damned - pathetic.

Also before you accuse others of lying you should make sure your own statements are truthful but that's probably too much to ask of you... never much of a facts person, are you.

I am Vod.  You are OGNasty.

Did you lose your funds like everyone else (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg54172880#msg54172880), or have you never lost any funds (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5297495.msg55791921#msg55791921)?

You contradict yourself.  

Why are you specifically mentioning me in this context so many times? There are 135 (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/30747.html) users who included Vod on their Trust list.

Theymos doesn't seem like the guy who wants to rule by himself. It's up to the community, and the community gave Vod DT2 Strength (16 (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=vod)).

Did I fall for it again by quoting an off-topic post?

because u must begin by yourself
you are talking about lofty matters, start with yourself

most of this 135 users scammers and idiots, your mind like of them

Probably a good time to bump this... OgNasty is not in DT1 this month so his score is:

https://meem.link/i/tqwtkcux.png
(image created via loyce.club)

As opposed to the usual +87 (BTW the image in the OP updated as well so now it makes no sense... I should have made a copy of the image).

Look at this data that is being indexed by search engines right now.  stake.com (https://scam.smarter) is sponsoring his continued attacks. :/  
In my defense, I am starting to trade more and publically/officially trust a lot more as well.

https://clubcrypto-static-website.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/20-12-07+og+stake_com.jpg

The entire reply is self centered bullshit, but his last line is the one I'd like to quote:
"Learn your bitcointalk history. (https://nastyscam.com/index.php/2021/01/14/contradictions-of-a-scammer-part-1-ponzi/)"

Everyone should learn how OgNasty lost thousands of coins that were returned to him (https://web.archive.org/web/20160212042638/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75843.0), from the words of OgNasty himself.

And yet I've never been happier.  ;D

Sort of makes all your hard work to manipulate the trust network in an attempt to punish me seem a bit foolish no?  All your abuse can't even stop me from joining a signature campaign.  That's gotta hurt considering your daily quest for power here.  :D

LOL... Sure, like anybody gives 2 fucks... I find it hilarious that you think you are so "relevant" here, just because you  are a long-term ponzi scammer who knows how to manipulate words and threads to your own choosing.

You still did the shit you did, it doesn't change anything, sorry dude... :D

Agreed.  Og is quick to bring up how Theymos continues to trust him and distrust me, despite Og's admitted ponzi, and Theymos been paying him the entire time he's been scamming and telling people I was a pedophile.    

Who wouldn't be happy if they had stolen enough to be set for life?  (Og's words)

($250 million in stolen FIAT and he is not sad.   At least he knows society expects his immoral actions need to be punished)

I hope I can speak for everyone when I say that we are very excited to see you make some money in a signature campaign. But you're still the same slimy conniving liar as ever and your signature doesn't have anything to do with your self-serving trust list.


Nor does this. Let's stick to the topic.

You're right.  I shouldn't troll you.  We should get back to the fact that none of the accounts I added had any controversial trust ratings but you have a problem with them because they trust someone who has been proven to be trustworthy but you don't like because you are guided by your emotions and not logic or the best interests of the trust network.  ;)

My signature has pages of your definition of trustworthy. 

I have a problem with your lying and trust abuse. That's a reasonable problem to have but you or anyone else is welcome to exclude me if they don't think so. Likewise they should exclude you if they don't think that sending red trust for opinions or including people to boost your own score is acceptable use of the trust system.

I don't believe I've ever lied or left trust that is in any way dishonest.  I've never left you red trust and you are all bad opinions so all evidence points to you being full of it.  I also don't care about my trust score or I wouldn't be so independent in giving you the finger when you try and tell me who I can and cannot add to my network, so you're projecting your own use of the system on my honest inclusion of honest members I wish to include in my network.  I'm not even in DT anymore so the entire self scratching argument doesn't even make sense.  

You're a crazed emotional woman trying to enact some form of revenge because I excluded you from my network long ago for having horrible judgement.  What you don't realize is that everything you've done towards me since I made that decision has only enforced that I made the right decision in excluding you and you can pull the wool over everyone else's eyes, but I see you for what you are.  Not that it makes a difference to me, as I wouldn't give 2 shits about you if you would stop attacking me with this sort of nonsense constantly.  It's sad how much time and effort you spend vying for my attention when I am staying active in my Bitcoin projects and continuing to offer trustworthy services.  I'm a great addition to this forum whether you like it or not, and you should appreciate what I do here instead of constantly trying to be a gnat buzzing around my head.

Edit: 2 of the members you listed below as me giving bad feedback to have threatened to kill me. The other was involved in the well documented extortion and harassment of a user here. Such a fail that you use those as your evidence of bad feedback. They very much deserve those negatives and the fact you side with people like that says everything about you.

Edit:  I was going to compile a list of his dishonest trust, but it would be for a shrinking list of people that still believe him.   He lies, period.


If only.... :(

LOL


You may honestly believe that e.g. eoakland's proof of account ownership was insufficient, or that minifrij's misunderstanding of your post was worthy of neg trust, or that anonymousminer deserves red trust for saying bad things about you, and it can still be abuse of the trust system because none of these things make them high risk in a trade. Nice straw man.


Another fallacy. I never said that you red trust every opinion you dislike... just the ones where you think you can get away with it.


Fingers crossed.

Jan 21:
"I'm not even the President anymore so the entire inciting a riot argument doesn't even make sense."

Temporal Cluelessness

@suchmoon:  I'm not sure how constructive such topics are anymore, esp for me since I'm not being paid to argue/"defend".  Theymos has been paying Og bitcoin throughout his entire scam (even while Og stole from him), and Theymos controls the proof of Og's crimes, which seems to keep vanishing.   Even if they aren't cooperating, Og is sure spinning it that way to boost his credibility.

Where is the post where Og told you and I that Theymos knows what Og is doing?

I certainly can't speak to what theymos knows or doesn't know... but I get the feeling he personally doesn't like ponzi's.

But, it is certainly quite clear that OgNasty has no issues with ponzi's... as long as they "pay the bills", of course.


The ends will always justify the means with OgNasty, no matter what the 'means' are. Just like above.. he's OK turning a blind eye to scammers taking advantage of people on this forum, just as long as they pay their advertising dues.. to stay in the scammers club. ::)  Just like he's OK adding random people on his trust list without really caring what feedback they've left.. because he wants to boost his own grandiose perspective of himself.

It's just one way he can feed his narcissistic supply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_supply).

Why the forum puts this kinda guy up on a pedestal, and backs him up with biased behaviors, is beyond me. I can only hope him being in a prominent "position" on this forum doesn't jeopardize the forum itself when his flagrant behaviors and poor business ethics eventually piss off the wrong person.

Can you clarify what this is about? As I understand it, you mean that OG returned 500 bitcoins to Theymos, but throughout the entire storage period, he operated on it at his own discretion? I honestly don't remember the content of the contract between OG and Theymos, as I read it for a long time (and I can't remember where to find it).

Allow me. I was paid by theymos to hold 500 BTC. I returned it when asked along with all the alts theymos asked me to return. He gifted the remainder to me and left me positive feedback. ;D

^ Obviously Og feels his actions in stealing the tokens is acceptable, keeping with his reputation as a thief.


Long story short:  Og had control of 500 btc of forum funds. Hoping no one would find out, he used them in airdrops and embezzled all tokens that the coins generated.  Theymos found out, asked he return certain tokens and he could keep the rest.  Og then said it was his "fiduciary duty" to steal as much as possible, and attacked Theymos for not telling him which tokens he could steal in advance - even though Theymos was unaware of the theft.  :/


Many women don't like prostitution - but it brings in the $.  He posts he doesn't like ponzis, but he has been paying Og the entire decade he's been running these ponzis, and using his position to discredit my investigation into the ponzis.   We can hope Theymos knows ponzis are wrong, but he doesn't act like it.

As I understand it, no one can confirm this except for Theymos? And what coins do you call "remainder"? Or you can go the other way ...

• Question to all: Is it possible to somehow link BFork addresses with BCH addresses?

If you're right, that's about half a million dollars minimum. For educational purposes, I'll try to find an agreement between Theymos and OG, then, probably, I'll see the whole picture, (In the meantime, I'll wait for an answer from OG) ...

Og is misleading, as usual.

Theymos asked for the coins back, and left OG positive feedback.  A lot of lemmings followed.   THEN Theymos found out Og had used those coins as if they were his, and declared Og tacky, which according to Og, means he is a disgusting human being.  

Theymos did not leave Og positive feedback for embezzling coins.  


Hey look, Og using his alt account to make a point after using it to escrow scam, merit scam and DT scam.  :/

OG held all the fork coins the entire time and gave theymos all of the valuable fork coins theymos wanted, like BCH..
theymos told OG to just keep the low value forks when the escrow was returned..

Along the time OG also claimed some airdrops from all of his addresses, including his address that held the forums escrow coins.. I imagine like stellar and clams and such..
He did this only by signing the addresses which did not endanger or move the escrow coins in any way..

theymos did say that it was a bit “tacky” for him to have claimed the airdrops, but their was no theft or risk to the coins in doing so..

He handed this forum back millions of dollar$ worth of bitcoins perfectly..

You so t have to believe me though.. Do the research..
I just know because I was there..



And by the way.. OG’s trust score is 150 something positive from my viewpoint..

The issue is never returning the stolen items once you get caught - people do that all the time.     The issue was he didn't inform anyone he had stole the forked coins until someone brought it up.  The same way he didn't inform everyone he didn't lose coins in pirate's ponzi - he hoped no one would find out.

Finally, take a clue from the politicians.   How many of them do the right thing and pay back fraudulent expenses before they are discovered?

He never even moved the fork coins from the escrow address until theymos told him to..
They just sat there..

Theft had already occurred.   What you saw here was  illegal - Theymos using community funds to reward a thief.   If you search for his real name, you'll see he's been suspect of mishandling community funds for over a decade.  He's no longer suspect - he is accused of being in collusion with OGNasty.   If this forum suddenly goes dark, you can thank me.  :)


Theymos paid you community funds.  You stole them and returned some when caught.   Theymos gave you what was not his to give, and gave you feedback to help you scam others.

Thanks bozo.   ;D

For those of us who don't know the history well, could you explain what you mean by 'community funds'? Because I am part of the community and those funds are not partially mine. I understand that theymos is now the owner of the forum but I don't know if in the period mentioned it was also Sirius or more people.

I believe he is referring to donations from the old donators, funds accrued by selling forum ad spaces, and maybe forked coins earned from both of those. I could be wrong of course, but this is where I would guess he is referring.

Correct.  The investigators will want to know exactly when the donations became his property.  I'm going off nothing but Theymos' words here on the forum he controls.  He pledged to use donations for the improvement of the bitcoin community, but instead he gave them all to his friends.   Did you know that every single person Theymos entrusted with bitcoin stole from him?    When someone steals entrusted property from you, and you reward them, it shows your corruption, and you usually go to jail.

Both OG and Theymos simply got too greedy.  They could have walked away years ago and been "set for life", as OG said.

Vod, you know I'm no fan of OgNasty so please don't take this as challenging you in a negative way, but when you returned to the forum the last time you were saying more or less the same thing as you are now.  If you've really got investigators looking into illicit transactions involving Theymos, OgNasty, and/or anyone else, it'd be much better if you'd show some evidence of the wheels of justice in motion instead of what look like empty threats.

And the reason I said "empty" is because you've been at this for years now and there hasn't been any action taken as far as the community can see.  Know what I mean?

The truth is that I knew little about this story and would not want to get too involved, but Vod's return to the forum and the things he says have aroused my interest.


Regarding what you say, there is a thread on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/muy4ml/open_letter_to_michael_marquardt_from/) from 3 years ago that is is consistent with what you say, as he claims he had contacted the FBI back then. However, it could be that the investigation is going slowly and has not yet been acted upon.

At the risk of stating the obvious, donations become the property of the recipient the moment they are given. Any subsequent absconsion of the donated funds by a third-party scammer is thus theymos's problem, not yours. I really don't see how this affects you in any way - you're out the donated funds regardless of theymos's decisions and actions. What exactly is the point of this vendetta? ???

Ah, thank you for that link.  I detest reddit and would never have known of that thread's existence had you not pointed it out or unless I saw another link to it on bitcointalk.

Now that I did see it, I'm not sure what to think.  I doubt any US alphabet agency would give any credence to Vod's claims about this forum's mismanagement of its funds when said claims are alongside accusations that his stroke was due to the stress from forum drama.  Then again, there's been no hard evidence as of yet regarding what's been presented to any government agency by Vod, so who knows.  What I've seen so far has basically been bluster and not much else.

Foxpup has a good point about donations being out of the hands of the donator once they're given, though I'm not sure about what, if any, promises were made to donators as to the use of the funds.  And I'd really like to hear OgNasty and Theymos's opinions on this, though I'm pretty sure they're not going to chime in.

As per my understanding he is trying to take it to the next level. It seems with OgNasty he was not able to get much attention, yes there were some drama but not enough to tickle everyone.

I cannot talk about any ongoing investigation, other than my tip to the FBI didn't go anyway.   However, an agency did take interest when Theymos caught OG stealing and rewarded him.   Another agency (in Arizona) contacted me and tried to get me to stop my investigation, even taking credit for bringing down chipmixer. (lol).

LoyceV - your name is mentioned in the emails.  I trust you enough to send it to you if you wish.


You won't hear anything.   Admitting one way or the other reduces available defense in court.   Ask Theymos right now if the forum is his, or the community, he won't answer.   His words will be used against him.

You have my curiosity (and my encrypted Protonmail (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2836875.msg56494521#msg56494521)).

That's true if law enforcement takes an interest in him (though it looks like so far they haven't and IMO probably won't), but he's obviously not concerned enough with self-incrimination, because he did post this:

I did get a better understanding of what the issue is here from the recent posts I read, far more than I had previously.  The alphabet agencies would probably see the use of forum funds--which were donations--as a stumbling block to any kind of legal action, but who knows. 

I brought this up before: were any promises made to the donators as to the intended use of the donations?

Well, now since we are diving deeper in technicalities, we should ask this, will there be any stripers and private lap dances in a new forum, or were we supposed to get free lunch in there? What do we need here and don't have? If we have a functional forum, there is no need for a new one.  So if he loves the children and provides for them, forget about divorcing him.😉

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155000.msg1643255#msg1643255

Look how many people trust that liar.


Can I get your explicit promise you will not share the info?  It will contain the raw unedited data, including the agent's name and email tracking info.

Sure, I won't share it. But you'll need to use your own Protonmail email to send to mine to enable end-to-end encryption.

I don't have one; I have no need.

I'll send it tomorrow when I get to my hotel room.. I'm just on a phone right now.

It will be nice to have another person verify this blackmail attempt.

We should probably make another thread if there will be discussion.   This thread is for pointing out how OG uses his position on DT to scam.

This sound a lot like communism to me if you think that some community funds should in some magical way redistributed to forum members.
Theymos never said this will be done in any way, so it's only your deluded assumptions.

btw what happened with your ''Goodbye'' message and leaving the forum?
Was that a lie also?

Sure ::)

No, that was my last post on this forum at the time. 

 ;)

Say what, now? 

I was asking that question in regards to Vod's claim of mismanagement/embezzlement of forum donations.  I wasn't around when the old members made their (now enormous) donations to bitcointalk, so I didn't know if Theymos or whoever was soliciting those donations said that the funds were going to be used for any specific purpose.

And even if there weren't any stated uses, it's yet to be seen whether any law enforcement agencies will think Vod has a valid enough claim to get them to investigate.  I've never heard of any US alphabet agency go after a discussion forum (and someone please point out a case if that's happened) for financial issues.  There may have been a case or two about hate speech, but even that I'm not entirely sure of.

There's this:

*Man, how the hell did you find that?*

I'm no accountant, lawyer, or otherwise in any profession that would be able to give an official interpretation of that entire statement (more of which is in that post you took a snippet of), but my layman's opinion is that what Theymos wrote is really vague.  And though I still don't fully understand the details of Vod's claim, i.e., what exactly OgNasty received and why and how it might be illegal, my first thought is that it's going to be damn hard for Vod to get a US agency involved in this--and he's said as much himself.

No other donors have complained that I know of.  LoyceV or anyone else: is that the case?  Has anyone who's donated (and thus might have a problem with how the funds were used) supported Vod's accusations?

And then there's still the issue of donations being out of the control of donators once they're given.  It's messy.

Edit:

Doh!!!  My bad, my bad.

*Man, how the hell did you find that?*
[/quote]

Top of this page.  :)

This is a classic case of embezzlement.    Theymos asked for donations to go towards the community, and he has used most of them for his personal use.   Much like OG embezzled his nastyfans donations to harden his personal assets. 

I've been living rent free in OG's head for a decade now.  It's very roomy, but falling apart; I'll probably be evicted when he gets a boyfriend in prison.  He feels the noose around his neck, so don't expect him to interact with me much anymore - everything he says contradicts previous statements.

Vod,

Whatever you are saying now, most of us don't know anything because we were not active back then, some of us are relatively new, and some others forgot what happened a couple of years ago. Most of the threads are old and I was clicking on this and that link to understand what happened. Unfortunately, I did not understand anything.

What I understand is, theymos collected the donations from forum members and OG was one of the escrow who was holding the funds. Now you are accusing him of stealing funds from there? Didn't he return the escrowed funds to theymos as the feedback says? He might have the hard fork coins like BCH and BSV. What happened to these alts?

How OG steal funds? How theymos use the funds for his personal use as you accuse? Would you mind writing one post with details and evidence?

I'm building the website now.  You'll have all the details, legal references and evidence you need.

No sense posting it here.  People will always trust Theymos and OG simply because they profit from the trust. 

Has he? If so, this is the first I'm hearing of it. All I've heard so far are accusations of OgNasty misappropriating forum funds. What did theymos allegedly do beyond trusting OgNasty?

I cannot post any links to external sites that contain his real name or I would be banned.    Ask around, find out his real name then visit .info for all the deets.

Edit:  Here is a good link that doesn't "dox" him lol.

https://www.ccn.com/theymos-free-open-discussions

Refrigerator, empty. Theymos. Send beer. Community funds. My share. Fast plz.