Bitcoin Forum

BitcoinTalk staff quietly banned multiple accounts that were connected to Sir William’s protest against BitcoinTalk for allowing people to buy and sell their BitcoinTalk accounts.

MajidBC, the account who messaged SirWilliam in an attempt to purchase his account, is now banned along with the “CozyLife” account as they found the write-up on their practices not to their liking. CCN’s policy is only to report what authors can prove and to update the articles with new information as it arrives.

BitcoinTalk Staff Quietly Bans Those Who Speak Up

A new petition encourages Theymos, the administrator of BitcoinTalk, to give his side of the story for an addition to the article about his website, instead of quietly banning accounts. While the accounts still appear to be active accounts as their member status has not changed, the accounts in question are unable to PM people or post on the forum. The Bitcoin community is founded on decentralized behavior, and the actions of the BitcoinTalk staff reflect how centralization can effect others when a select handful of people can control the masses.

Media must follow certain ethical standards when reporting the news and at CCN, our team follows the standards to the letter. We believe that our readers have a right to know what’s going on in the world, and we don’t believe in hiding or altering any aspect of that reality. Even when it might hurt to hear the truth about something, you have the right to know that it happened. BitcoinTalk’s attempt to silence people from speaking out will not stop the media from reporting on it’s folly, but it will spur new articles on how they handled the situation. Everyone should have a voice. Everyone deserves to know the truth. You deserve to know the truth.

You’ve had to endure the dishonesty of politicians, while business owners seek to control what information you receive and form monopolies on their market. With a decentralized future, you can make decisions for yourself along with your fellow man. BitcoinTalk and other major players could benefit from a decentralized control structure. If enough people vote to remove an account, it will be removed. If enough people wish to reinstate that account, it will be reinstated. Blockchain technology makes all of this possible, and all the largest Bitcoin forum needs to do is implement it

BitcoinTalk staff wouldn’t need to moderate the forums any longer if they become decentralized, and their already existing trust from the community would only get stronger for it.

Do you think that the BitcoinTalk forum should become decentralized so that the members control the site? What ramifications would they need to consider? If there was a BitcoinTalk coin to govern the weight of people’s votes on the forum, would it be useful? Would you buy it? How do you feel about BitcoinTalk’s staff members quietly banning people for speaking out against them? Leave a comment below and express your views.

SOURCE :https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcointalk-staff-quietly-bans-people-speaking/

This is acutally a good idea, as staff for these past days have bullying members, I seen one member get banned  for small scams and the bigger ones like TF still stay here cause hes connected.  Theymos and his staff goons are just bullies with power in this forum.  Like the government,  People you shouldnt be afraid if they ban you then this forum is not worth it, move on to others, let theymos staff and mods be the fall of him.

Already posted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=810935.0


I doubt the reason whoever you're talking was banned was for pulling some small scams. Staff here don't handle scams or ban scammers regardless of how connected or large their scams are.

Thanks for this post , I'm thinking the same thing  ... now we have just  to wait a reply from an administrator .

A reply regarding what exactly?

Oh yes , sorry I forgot to quote the important parts :
this



and this :




I think those is an interesting "affermations/questions" , but it is only my personal opinion  ;) .

Theymos had absolutely nothing to do with these bannings and most of the others that get banned. And this is a centralised privately-owned forum. If someone wants to create their own decentralised one they're free to do it. Creating a centralised one as he described probably wouldn't work very well for obvious reasons. Don't like what someone says? Get you and your buddies accounts and down vote to censor their posts into oblivion.

Yes you're right ,  the forum has need to be centralized  . Thanks again for your reply and sorry I didn't want to be arrogant ( it is only for know).

Theymos is responsible for the bans because hes handing power down to others to control the forum here, Hes the owner, hes responsible and guilty as anyone else is.  People are afraid to speak up.  I took a screen shot of this and if my account gets banned then Its more news to feed.

You won't be banned unless you break some rule. Seriously, this forum doesn't care about someone whining about something. I've seen far worse things been said about the staff and theymos and those threads still stay, but of course you're a butthurt conspiracy theorist so you'll make up something every time to suit your agenda.

I suggest trial by not spammy posts.

Who is TF?

I could figure it out but I'm lazy.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=67058

Original name TradeFortress.

Thanks. Holy hell thats impressive feedback.

You oughtta remember one of your best friends Vod. You and him and Blazr should be called the 3 stooges of bitcointalk.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125582


Speak of bitcointalk corruption...

No one could really prove if it was sold, and TF couldn't prove it was him or not.

So people just assume whatever they want.

You guys realize the trust system is completely meaningless, right?

So long as you can buy and sell accounts, you can get trust that you didn't earn and use it to make trades with people who don't know they are trading with a bought account.

This is why account selling should be frowned upon and not openly endorsed.

And yet that fixes nothing, accounts will still be bought and sold. The "burden of proof" should not rest on the administrators but rather upon those wanting to trade, they are not here to hand hold. It is up to the individual to check the Trust of those they deal with and actually LOOK at what has been left and who left it. Then you can form an educated opinion if you want to believe it or not. A good thing about these buys and sells; it makes you really check the account before you trade. At least it should.
Trust is not meaningless, it is a good starting point.

Exactly, but I don't think this guy is going to get it. Most people generally do seem to frown upon account selling and it's not 'endorsed' by this site or the admins. There's a difference between endorsing something and allowing something, especially something they cannot hope to or be expected to control. Also, even if account trading was banned, that wouldn't mean it's not going to happen and suddenly make trust 'meaningful' or 100% trustable.

You implicitly endorse account selling by creating "pro" arguments on its behalf. You could simply disallow open account selling on the forum, but that's too much to ask apparently.

I'm just pointing out that if you are happy with your trust system being absolutely meaningless, then by all means, carry on exactly the way you've been doing.

There are pro-arguments to letting it happen, contrary to your belief, and your opinion on the matter isn't shared by everyone. And what good what banning the sale of accounts here do exactly? Suddenly make it not happen? Only a naive fool would think it would have any positive impact. It would have the exact opposite because a lot of people would then be clueless to the fact that the practise goes on. Banning account sales would literally have zero positive effect here.

Your argument is completely meaningless. How would banning account sales make the trust system any more or less valid? It wouldn't.

A lot of people are already completely oblivious to the fact that account selling goes on.

I'm just pointing out that, as things stand right now, the trust system is completely meaningless, because trust can be bought and sold instead of earned. Are you denying this reality altogether?

And there'd be even less that were aware it went on if it wasn't allowed. If you're of the opinion that the trust system is completely meaningless then it's completely meaningless regardless. Banning account selling doesn't make it any more meaningful or valid. The trust system is a guide and not an ultimate honesty and trustworthiness barometer and you're free to interpret it in any way you want.

What? That makes no sense. If it wasn't allowed, people would know that its not allowed.

Most of the time people don't stop to even think about it. They don't stop to consider they may be speaking or trading with a bought account. Its not really up to you to decide whether or not they should know this, the simple fact is, they don't.

Trust means nothing so long as accounts are bought and sold here.

I will be happy to provide the service of listing and pointing out bought accounts for general public awareness.

Unless you are trading with a bought account, in which case trust is absolutely meaningless.

And how can you know if you are conducting a trade with a bought account?

You can't. Ergo, Bitcointalk's trust system is meaningless.

No, it makes sense. Your argument doesn't though. You seem to think that trust is only meaningless because accounts are allowed to be sold, but whether they are or not makes no difference to the trust system because accounts will still be sold regardless. Banning the sale of accounts changes absolutely nothing, apart from maybe making people like you think they're now a little but safer, when they're not.

OK so lets just do away with pretending that the trust system actually matters then, can we?

The entire component should be removed from the forum since it is already prone to being abused.

You're like the American government trying to defend an indefensible position. You won't accept that there is an underlying flaw in the root of your logic.

Selling of accounts is nearly impossible if not completely impossible to control. You will have a hard time proving an account sold or bought if the account owner wants it that way. No one knows for sure everyone with whom they deal. This is the way the internet works and has so from the beginning. Simply insist on escrow for your trades it will protect in the future, problem all but solved. As has been stated many times, Trust is a starting point not an end all, be all.
I know this is hard and one has to do a little thinking but a little common sense goes a long way. Let me give you an example:
Account "Fred" has 20 positives. When looking at 15 of them, they are left by the same newbie and the trades are for $5 Paypal for the equivalent in BTC and all made within a week time frame. Could it be possible this was "bought Trust?" Possibly alt account of the buyer?
My thinking process would lean towards yes. The next conclusion would be either stay away or start following the Trust trail for more information. Also, after 15 trades for $5, would I trust a deal for $500? No I would not.
Account "Alice" has 5 trades from 5 different people on the Default list. All were buys over $300 each over a 1 month time period. If I wanted to sell a $300 item to this person, would I? After reading ALL Trust and it checks out, I would use escrow and proceed.
Same account but "Alice" has not posted for a year. I would suspect a stolen or sold account and either use escrow or pass on any trades.
Some Trust is spiteful and malicious but normally it is easy to spot.
Bottom line: You need to protect yourself, sold account or not, use your brain and don't rely on others telling you what to do. If you don't like the Trust system, don't use it. To say it is meaningless is, well, meaningless.




Same can be said for your position. After placing new rules to protect that are unenforceable, you now have a false sense of more security.

There's not a flaw in my logic, but there is in yours. Everything can be abused in the world so should we get rid of that too? Nothing is perfect or flawless. The trust system serves its purpose as a guide regardless of whether it's perfect or can or is abused or not. Mods can abuse, users can abuse, police can abuse etc etc. That doesn't mean all those things are worthless and should be gotten rid of. Should we just get rid of the entire forum since it can be abused? No, we make do with what we've got. If you don't like the trust system or the way the forum operates or is run simply don't use them. You're not forced to nor are you obliged to take any trust or feedback sent/received seriously. That is entirely up to you.

Edit: KWH has good points.

Isn't it funny how the biggest defenders of the default trust are those setting atop it? these people are not bitcoin supporters. a supporter of bitcoin would encourage decentralized consensus proof of trust algorithm. maybe they don't understand that bitcoin is decentralized proof of trust in and of itsself, but on the same token, perhaps they are corrupted morally and feel the need to protect their bottom line, by keeping a monopoly on the trust system, and their corruption has overriden their logical thinking algorithm. food for thought :-)

I do agree with everything you just said here. Perhaps the next step would be building a decentralized escrow system into the forum. (one can dream, and it will probably never happen for many reasons, some obvious and some not)

Well said. I really don't think I can add anything more to this discussion.

If Hilarious and Co want to keep justifying account selling, there's obviously nothing I can do to stop them since they have the power to change things and I don't.

I will continue to keep track of sold accounts to the best of my ability and warn other users if I see them attempting to run scams.

We're not encouraging it. We can't do anything about it and 'evil dicklessness' will happen regardless, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend this. And why would we ban you? Idiots are allowed a voice too regardless of how wrong or annoying they may be.


Says the guy who was desperately trying to buy trust to appear trustworthy. Bitcoin may be decentralised but this forum isn't. All you whingers and whiners should get together and create your own decentralised utopian bitcoin forum because I'd love to see how it wouldn't work.


You haven't been able to add anything to this discussion from the start. We don't have the power to change anything either because banning the sale of accounts will change absolutely nothing, but for some reason you are unable or unwilling to grasp this. How can you not comprehend this? Please tell me what good it would actually do? It wouldn't change a single thing except make it easier for people to fall victim to a bought account and that's why it is allowed.

And I would be happy to read your list and compare notes. I do believe those that are bought/sold and discovered deserve some type of warning.

You could simply ban account selling from the forum. That's what you do.

Then you still remind people that its possible that others are buying and selling accounts offsite, but its still illegal to do this onsite. So that's what you do.

It would do good because there wouldn't be as much buying and selling of accounts. I can't believe this isn't obvious to you. I don't think you can see things as clearly as you think that you do. Your position of power has warped your judgment to the viewpoint that you can do no wrong.

As an outsider, potential solutions to the problem are obvious. But you are fighting any sort of change tooth-and-nail, and I have better things to do with my time then help your forum maintain its existence. So much for credibility. To pretend this forum has any credibility is a disastrous lie.

TL;DR - You are openly endorsing crooked behavior by allowing account selling to continue unabated.

Incoming new account in 2 minutes. Actually they probably make or have made dozens as has already been stated.
Banning does nothing. It can't be enforced effectively. I can't believe this isn't obvious to you.
People will still go to Skype, PM and other places to buy and sell without missing a step.
Give us some viable solutions instead of quoting the same thing over and over.



EDIT: Personal attacks do nothing for your credibility.

There is no whinging and whining going on. A simple statement of the facts, which you and others like you refuse to hear or give fair consideration.

Look. If you can buy accounts, that means the trust system is meaningless, because it means you can buy trust. Within the bounds of the rules. Which is against the rules. Which makes the forum's current policies in contradiction with each other.

And you guys are just running in circles around me trying to say there is no problem here.

I haven't been warped by anything, I'm just able to look at this from outside the box whilst you are blinded by your own bias and somehow think banning it would make it decrease any less. You're so preoccupied with account selling being 'evil' (lol) that you think it should just be banished completely but cannot even look rationally at why banning will do nothing at all. Don't you know that prohibition or banning things never works? It just pushes the activity further underground and out of sight, that's it.


You've spent the past two days whinging and whining. What facts have you stated exactly? I hope you're not confusing your opinion with one.


And we've told you already that banning it will do nothing. Making it slightly harder to buy/sell accounts is irrelevant. You're also forgetting not everyone thinks like you that accounts should be illegal/disallowed/discouraged/banned etc because thank satan your opinion doesn't make the rules here. And Kiddie porn is illegal, trading a bitcoin forum account isn't as much as you'd like it to be.

An unrelated matter entirely. it is very difficult to discuss a personal matter such as the one regarding my purported "attempt at buying trust" without becoming emotional. The issue we are discussing here is forum corruption and inconsistency of policies. I made two statements in this thread. perhaps you should read these statements and analyze them for facts/opinions before resorting to a personal attack, which is a sure sign of a lack of an intelligent argument.

Liability would be based on the specific facts and what a reasonable person would do.  The site has mechanisms in place to moderate and threads are deleted on a regular basis.  Under those conditions it may very well that the site would be expected to control those types of posts as much as reasonably possible.  By allowing the posts it could be seen as an implicit endorsement of those activities.  The fact that staff comes on here to ridicule those that complain about would certainly weigh heavily on the side of liability.  This is why normal businesses put in reasonable controls.  It is clear that hilariousandco has no concept of these issues or how they work in the real world.

See, the people who actually think the staff are legit just have to suspect that your account is just a dummy account made to post here. 3 posts.


Why would you even "speak up"? You could PM the heads of staff if there's an abusive forum staff member.

Actually, i believe that this is frowned upon by theymos. i don't have a source on that but i recall a discussion on the matter from days long gone by.

Thank you. This post did not go unnoticed.

Regardless if account selling is endorsed or not, it does not change the fact that the forum is not responsible for moderating scams (or potential scams). For the most part people are able to speak what is on their mind and post what they want with very few exceptions (obvious spam, maleware, links to illegal marketplaces, trading in things that are illegal). The only "flaw" in allowing people to trade accounts is that it potentially allows people to receive ill gotten "trust" as it would allow someone to potentially pull a scam in the future.

If a scam is being attempted with a purchased account or not, it is not the forum's job to warn others about potential scams. The fact that a purchased account was paid for would make it less likely that someone would want to scam with it unless there is a very good chance the scam will be successful and the scammer will be able to scam for more then what the account was purchased for. If you know how much a specific user's "trust" is worth in a general sense then you can be reasonably certain they will not attempt to scam for less of amounts.

There are also several legit reasons as to why people wish to purchase accounts (primarily signature campaigns). If you were to attempt to ban or police account sales then the percentage of account sales for legit reasons would go significantly down and people will malicious intentions would purchase accounts off forum, and have the purchase include VPN accounts that were previously used to connect to the forum with the account (making it appear the account was not sold). This will result in more scams involving sold accounts and a false sense of security that the account you are dealing with has not been sold.

If you were to say that you were not aware that account sales are allowed then that is your own fault for not knowing the rules of the forum that you are using.

Look. Banning accounts doesn't magically make the trust system perfect either. There are plenty of ways rules can contradict each other and we don't claim them to be perfect because they're not. We don't ban scammers or remove scams either but that doesn't mean we encourage or support them and banning them would do nothing either. And you are running around in circles trying to say there is a problem here whilst offering no viable solution except "ban accounts" which is a solution for nothing other than your own peace of mind. Maybe we should agree to disagree because it's clear you're not going to change your mindset and it's unlikely neither are the staff or admins unless you can actually make a valid point.


Forum corruption? There is no corruption. The only time people complain about corruption is when something doesn't go their way. Oh a mod removed my spam post - they're corrupt and censoring me! I've made plenty of intelligent arguments and you haven't once, but are now ironically resorting to a personal attack yourself, but I'm not sure you are capable of intelligent discussion as evidenced by your behaviour the last two days in having a hissy fit and throwing petulant insults around like calling people faggots and other such nonsense, now that really is a sign of a lack of an intelligent argument.


No, it is clear you peope have no concept of these issues here. I have a great concept of the issues and how they should be handled on this forum. Yes, we moderate threads and posts that break those rules. Selling accounts do not break those rules. This isn't the real world; it's an Internet forum and we go by the rules that have been set out before us. Allowing posts or certain things does not mean we endorse them. You can attempt to scam or post questionable trades or post racist exonophobic shit, but that doesn't mean anyone here endorses it and we moderate as appropriate per the rules.


It may not have gone unnoticed by you because it was merely something critical (but also irrelevant) and that suits your agenda, but I'm sure it went uncomprehended by you since you offer no elaboration or further comment on it.  

I never said it would.


Such as... ?



Actually you do. Every single day. Maybe you personally don't, but somebody does.



I didn't say this at all. You keep putting words in my mouth. I said "ban account selling," not ban accounts. If you want to ban the accounts being sold as punishment for breaking the rules, I'll leave that up to you.



I've made several points which you danced around, resolving nothing.


How could I have recognized that it suits my agenda yet it remains uncomprehended (sp) by myself?

This is a lie. If you try to get other people to believe this then you are scamming. The only "scam" that is moderated is that of malware (people posting links to malware).

You seem to have a hidden agenda beyond that of trying to get account sales stopped on this forum.

You're telling me accounts here are NEVER banned for scamming? I would count malware as a scam.

My hidden agenda is truth and justice for all. But please do elaborate on your conspiracy theory. PS I thought you ignored me?

That is ridiculous.

What I suggest is that people start suing the forum if they realize a loss due to some of the activities here.  

How it works is that you sue the whois privacy service (which is in Panama).  It is unlikely that company will provide a court defense over a service that costs a couple dollars a year.  Most likely they will either divulge the true registrant or simply default.  

If the true registrant is identified they will need to provide a defense and identify themselves or they will default.  If they identify themselves then you can start identifying the staff and calling them in for depositions.  If they default then you can probably get a court order to seize the domain from the .org registrar which is located in the USA.  If bicointalk.org were to default you really don't need that solid of a case, you just need a prima fascia case which will be successful if they default.  By suing the forum you will put them between a rock and a hard place.  

If you think this forum does not matter in the real word, think again.  The Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation shot himself in the foot by posting here and Barry Silbert used it against him in court  Vessenes has not posted here since:

http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdf

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306672.msg3289385#msg3289385

Forum posts have also been cited in a several other criminal and civil cases such as the Silk Road and pirateat40 prosecutions.

Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act) which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information.

The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post).

Like I said with the exception of malware, members are not banned for scamming. Accounts are generally abandoned when they are caught trying to scam, but are not banned. The definition of a scam is shaky at best, the best definition would be something along the lines of someone stealing from someone else (or something similar to larceny or obtaining property by false pretenses), however the forum cannot know that this happened for sure (to be sure enough so that their speech should be limited) until they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in open court, which very rarely happens for bitcoin related scams.

You were are on my ignore list, however I came across your post on one of my purchased accounts and decided to chime in.

Really? You probably know better ::)

That depends of the specific facts.  That immunity goes out the Window if the web site conspires with people who post or place the ads.  it also does not provide immunity from criminal liability.  Giving Trade Fortress specialized privileges to promote a fake bank covers both those issues.  You should read the link you posted so you understand what it means.  Some case decisions are posted there.  

As I have explained any defenses won't matter unless Mr. Marquardt (Theymos) shows up in court.

Any lawyer will tell you that doesn't hold up in court, because it usually doesnt.

Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and  would be reversed.

If you were referring to TF posting in the VIP section then that is not something that only he was allowed to do. Anyone else is allowed to post in the VIP section provided they donate at least 50 BTC to the forum (that much was worth much less when TF donated and when most people were donating).

A case close to one regarding advertisements is Goddard v. Google, Inc.

Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court?

it won't hold up for a second in court against a lawyer worth their salt, and lets face it, in these types of cases, the prosecuting attorney is always worth their salt.
You asked for proof, so here you go.

One of the most famous cases in internet history.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#.22King_Kong.22_defense

Section 230 does not provide protection against a site breaking IP (intellectual property) law, which is what copyright law is.

Section 230 doesn't matter. EU directive 2000/31/EC was over ruled in court already, setting a precendence for prosecuting cases in relation to anti-trust, such as a forum failing to remove objectionable content within a reasonable time frame. The defense may try to hide under 230, but there are any number of laws that can be used to sidestep that protection. study consumer fraud law, and realize that this forum is absolutely liable for its content. always has been, and always will be. The forum is used to facilitate monetary trades, and thus is open to more scrutiny.

wow.  so many jr. members with such strong opinions on the matter.  this is not a democracy, it is a privately owned forum.  if you don't like how things are handled, leave and start your own.

thank you mods for your continued efforts to keep the forum somewhat under control

This should be stickied.   :)

accounts will be sold whether its allowed or not.

i know one of global mods here in real life and he told me - they hardly ban anybody here, due to all the concept of freedom. thats also why they dont delete likely scams just show you red bar up.

if u want to not be scammed - not only loo kfor age of account but also how active it is + if it writes in similar sections all the time and in similar tone.

You would serve the domain owner WhoisGuard, Inc.

Domain Name:BITCOIN.ORG
Registrant Name:WhoisGuard Protected
Registrant Organization:WhoisGuard, Inc.
Registrant Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411
Registrant City:Panama
Registrant State/Province:Panama
Registrant Postal Code:00000
Registrant Country:PA
Registrant Phone:+507.8365503

In some cases an In Rem action can be filed where you sue the domain name.  Not sure if that is possible in this type of case.  In any case service is not that difficult.  If Theymos would need to be served at some point he has already provided enough info to find him via his Reddit AMA.

What part of this forum is "under control"?

It is completely out of control.

Admittedly, that's one of the reasons I like it.

So, I'll just leave well enough alone.

I just don't think its right to trick users into thinking the rating system means anything.

Nor is it right to buy and sell accounts for the purpose of deceiving others. (and let's face it, that's the only purpose)

I am not very familiar with the laws regarding proper service as I have never had to try to avoid service like this. Regardless he would not need to personally appear in court unless he was compelled to testify, if he simply wanted to put on a defense he could have someone appear and speak on his behalf (an attorney/team of attorneys)

Private ownership doesn't exclude you from legal liability :-)

I referenced the wrong domain but bitcointalk.org is registered to the same company.

Mr. Marquardt would be a witness and he would be subject to appear at depositions and court hearings where he would testify.

Him potentially testifying has nothing to do with putting on a defense. There is also nothing that would prevent him from sending some other agent of the forum to testify they the agent has sufficient knowledge about the scope of the deposition. This is why the CEO of major companies do not testify when their companies are involved in lawsuits.

Also claiming section 230 protection would probably prevent the case from ever making it to trial in the event that immunity is upheld (if they have immunity then the facts of the case do not matter as they are not liable regardless of the facts)

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.  If Mr. Marquardt is directly involved in the activities in question then he has to testify.  This is not some large where you have thousands of employees doing all kinds of stuff.  In order for immunity to even be considered they have to identify themselves.  That means proving a registered business name, identify all the owners of the domain name, etc.  You don't get that part.  If they don't do that then they can't provide any defense.

It is interesting that if this thread involved some financial intuition I can imagine all the hooting and hollering how a financial institution shouldn't be allowed to do things like this ...  but since it is someone running a Bitcoin site everything is different and any complaint is a "conspiracy."

right along with the screenshots of [you] admitting Blazr paid you to negative rep a certain poster's profile. feeling nostalgic?

Based on the premise that started this thread I guess all of you are about to quietly disappear. lol

And if we don't dissapear, it would certainly be enough evidence that the OP is wrong :D Of course!

Take this post and run with it!

 Use it as an answer to all you problems!

 ;D

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

^that is what i think of your logic. notice the egregious eyerolling.

Let's see the screenshots!

You've gone from simply wanting to buy trust to being an pathetic liar, haven't you?  I love the BS feedback you've left me and cool.  You'll fit in fine with the rest of the scammers here.   ;)

So you deny knowledge of the following profile, is this correct?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125582

I know it's there!

I only have the one account.  No time or interest to make fake accounts.

If you are going to post otherwise, please include your imaginary proof.  Otherwise, no one is going to believe a liar.

I am asking for the image. i know someone still has the records. i already have the text logs. the picture would be more damning though.

Ah, so someone fed you fake text logs, knowing you had a beef with me and would eat it up?   You're religious too, aren't you?  Gullible idiot.   ::)

Did you just give me an easy out lol? why thank you, but i am enjoying riding the edge for now. there is a good chance the screenshots are gone, and i will end up looking like the liar you claim me to be. the online copy is gone: https://i.imgur.com/tdUoUY4.png I see Blazr is gone as of september 2014 as well. i guess that deprives me of my smoking gun. I was going to ask him {very nicely of course} to get you in line.

I've been leaving people negative trust for buying or selling accounts for over a year.  Only in your mind would you think I own an account selling other accounts.   ::)

I know you weren't involved in the selling of the accounts. that was solely blazr and his schemesters. He paid or extorted someone into leaving negative feedback on the people who outed him. The feedback is gone now but i really wanna say it was you that was the person who left it. I know it was either you  b!z, or m0bux(sp?)

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

I need to find the other half of this document, but the people who had it are 3, and none of them are responsive.

Jesus the people on this forum are just ridiculous. This place just seems to breed paranoid kooks.

Have you checked out your user name lately bro?

I can question things and come to the conclusion that nothing wrong is happening. Questioning and paranoia are two different things. Let me ask you a question. The people that are being persecuted are of such high caliber and so well respected within the community that the only course of action was to crush their insolence? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

BTW: MnW, Bruno and I have talked so much shit about this forums mods and admin over the years that I would have banned us but it never happened. Most of the bans here happen for off topic trolling. Moonshadow, in particular, has shown remarkable restraint because I've given him loads of shit without breaking the rules and he never banned me.

Sorry if I think you're full of shit. Please carry on with your crusade.

@Help.org

Did theymos piss in your cornflakes? What's got you all crazy? It can't be this stupid non-issue, so what happened?

I'm done. There isn't anything left to say.

Edit: There is 1 thing left to say: I do appreciate the fact that I am able to read and post here.

I try to bring people into Bitcoin and Theymos and his gang conspire to rip those people off as a welcoming message.  Then the staff comes on to ridicule the people that complain about it.  That is over the top and it is damaging to Bitcoin. 

the account resale is probably a non-issue as far as court claims since nobody has really identified a monetary loss.  However, it make Bitcoin look ridiculous to run the main forum like that.  It looks like a bunch of goofy teenagers who have no idea what they are doing and they even admit they think this is not the "real world."  What a bunch of goofballs. 

Look at the feedback that Vod and cooldgamer left me. all for stipulating i would only trade with a hero or trusted member and we must trade feedback.

I post at least a few times a day and read 10x more than I post and I haven't seen anything like that. That doesn't mean it's not happening I'm just not aware of it. I only know of a few possible problems involving theymos at all. GLBSE, the default trust list, accepting ad money from BFL and the forum funds all have all had questionable outcomes in discussion but I never really saw any proof of wrongdoing. If you have some proof please post it. I'm just like a bitch, I love to read a good drama. Give me a harlequin romance novel and I'll curl up on the couch for an hour. lol

As far as the staff are concerned, some of them are shitheads, some of them are nice guys, some are probably here to pull a long con, some are probably here because they have a real love for Bitcoin, just like a cross section of people you meet anywhere in real life. Sometimes it's hard to judge what's really happening off of just forum posts. Some people have a tough time expressing themselves in writing and there will always be a missing bit of info that no one mentioned. That's why I try to go to as many conferences as possible. I want to get a real sense of who is in control of the businesses so I know who to trust.

FYI, everyone who posts theymos's dox gets banned.

One more indication the staff is conspiring to do this stuff.  Theymos runs a business so there is no issue with identifying the business and its owners. 

I think I have this document

It seems theymos wants his real name to be used so he can take credit for what he has done.  I agree with that, it is about time he stood up and takes responsibility.  Maybe there is still a chance he will turn into a regular person someday.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8954.msg130042#msg130042

The situation was:

Blazr was caught replying to his thread, as Blazr, under the BTCTalkAccounts account.

A few people noticed it and posted about that.

(BTCTalkAccounts is responsible for various phishing sites on Bitcointalk, and lots of hacked accounts.)

Blazr extorted and bribed the people that noticed it to delete their quotes.

More interestingly, the password for BTCTalkAccounts is the same password for Blazr. ::)

https://i.imgur.com/Piu49zY.png

When I looked in BTCTalkAccounts's account, he had already deleted the earlier PMs. I still have the rest of the PMs, which is.. fairly interesting, especially since a certain member is now staff here.

----------

To answer your question: No, mlawrence (Vod) wasn't the person that left negative feedback for the people who outed him.

https://i.imgur.com/4pPZ0sz.png

Aww, since the account was banned, I can't see the outbox.

It's no coincidence that Blazr has logged in to leave me negative feedback, now is it  :D

Well, to address a couple points here, first off, banning account selling is something that the Bitcointalk staff is not able to do. We can ban content (the example kiddy porn was used) because that is posted here, and we can delete the post and ban the poster. If you make 50 accounts on different tor nodes and then make a contact via pm or skype to sell the accounts, how exactly do you expect that we can stop that without spying through your pms and hacking your skype? By publicly allowing account selling, its not a surprise to anyone, so everyone has a bit of suspicion in them when dealing with someone. If we said we banned Account selling, then the majority of people who knew how to get around the system would be able to do more damage to unsuspecting people.

As far as the trust system goes, it is not flawless, people need to stop taking it as definitive proof of trust. It is essentially ebay feedback, past history does not guarantee future trustworthiness. However! Something that everyone seems to forget, is that your account and its history has financial value, and so does your trust. If I wanted to sell my account (I'm not going to) I would get a pretty hefty offer. My account valuation would be based on account age, past actions, future opportunities with my name, and my trust, plus various other things. A person can calculate how much money they can trust me worth, based on similar factors. If I have 50 positive feedback, people trusting me with 1 BTC, that doesn't magically mean I'm trustworthy with 50 BTC, perhaps 5 BTC, based on various calculations. If the valuation of what I'd sell my account for is based on my trust value + other factors, it doesn't make economical sense for someone to buy my account for 20+ BTC (the combination of financial factors) and then to scam for just the value of my trust. Now of course that isn't foolproof, but its a heavy incentive not to buy trust heavy accounts and scam with them. Buying accounts with the intention to scam is frankly a gamble. If you get caught after paying a hefty sum for a valuable account, you are out a bunch of money. Perhaps it is more valuable to play it straight and sign up for sig campaigns, invest in business opportunities, etc.

Anyway, I'm not justifying account selling, I'm not in denial, and sure it can be used to scam, but if you actually do the math, sometimes there can be legit reasons to buy accounts. But, thats all moot anyway, because we can't stop it either way.

As far as the censorship goes, only global moderators or admins can ban people. "Silent bans" tend to happen in full view of all of the moderators by public request of a moderator who can't ban someone personally. This isn't a decentralized forum, if you want a decentralized forum, make one.

And really, by the way, it is a very very common occurrence for people to cry censorship, try to make a martyr out of themselves by declaring that they will be banned for their views, and then get themselves banned for spamming/completely unrelated reasons to prove a point. There is no rule that says you can't voice your outrage at policies here, and as long as you aren't being overly abusive, you are welcome to criticize everything we do. Just put your complaints in the right sections, and it would be very well appreciated if you are actually looking for an answer / a change rather than just trying to pick a fight to prove a point.

SaltySpitoon, its a good post but we all know that politics relating to the trust system is what runs this community now. You can very easily bring to light the actions of a user not in the default trust, but the posters in the default trust have a pseudo immunity to scam accusations, to where they can do whatever they want and get away with it, because any negative trust they receive won't show up on their profile, and they can easily enlist fellow members in the default trust and use them to discredit their accusors through posting fraudulent trust ratings. its a pretty broken system in this aspect. It is my belief that only moderators and admins should be allowed into the default trust.

Hyperbolic reply.  You take reasonable steps to prevent it such as deleting threads with the same effort that is used to delete what is considered spam or off-topic.  Then you warn people that accounts can be sold if it is a problem, you don't publically support account selling.  That make this site (and Bitcoin) look ridiculous and irresponsible and possibly even create a legal liability.  That is why you don't see this at most other forums.

If there is a scam accusation against someone on default trust with actual evidence then others (that is credible) then other people on default trust will give negative trust and the people that have previously trusted the account will remove such trust.

The people on default trust on not all part of some kind of collation or a gang, and will not necessarily trust or believe others on default trust if there is a reason not to.

You've been here 3 months, so you think your opinion holds more weight than mine? i have busted hero members red handed and they are still in the default trust.

It's always best to use the X-Files theory of trade on this forum.

The length of time that I have been here does not matter. What matters is facts. Your attitude towards newer members is one additional reason why people wish to buy accounts as newer members will not get respect from people like you despite them having a valid point.

The fact that the account was a hero is not relevant. Unless you can provide proof of wrongdoing then the account will be unaffected. It is also possible that the person who gave trust to the accused was not made aware of the accusation so if they do not know to remove the trust they will not.

EDIT:
Do you mean that the truth is out there?

Trust No One

Your argument falls flat, because i provided plenty of proof in the matter which i am referencing, without going into much detail. I have pm logs and screenshots, and i was extorted into removing them, by tactics ranging from death threats, to sending drugs to my house from silk road, to opening a credit card in my name.

The reason you dont see account selling at other forums, is because their demographic is different. This isn't the hello kitty fansite forum. We cater to the bitcoin community, all of which knows basic anonymity measures and know how to bypass any measures that we could possibly put in place. Why create laws if we can't enforce them, it just makes us look like jackasses.


How people regard others on the default trust list is up to psychology. I can't tell people how to use the forum's trust system. Thats really a social issue. I've seen plenty of people on the default trust list get called out for being a scammer, and they were given no special treatment by the community. Pirate@40 was around before the trust system, and the amount of people cheering for him rather than pointing out their suspicions was completely disproportionate, even after he started to slip. Most of the people on the default trust list have in the past done something for the community, whether that be to providing a "trusted" service or product, its understandable that no one wants the good guys to become scammers, but sometimes it happens. I really don't think there is a huge issue with the forum's trust system. If you have an idea on how to fix it, we are all ears.

That being said, I'm not a trust system shill, I've never been a huge fan of it, but I understand its uses. If you want someone off of the trust system, you have to prove it to the people that added them. I've seen plenty of people removed. Actually how the system works is pretty interesting. If I add someone to the default trust list under me, its a blow to my reputation if they do something, giving me incentive to only add those that I truly trust. And if someone that I trust messes up, I will want to know immediately so I can remove them and stop the damage to my own reputation.

This sounds like an appropriate situation that should have been reported to the police. If someone is making death threats to you then, even if not credible they are almost always investigated by the police/FBI. If this really is true (I have my doubts) then an account's level of green trust does not matter as there would almost certainly be evidence of that person's actions being linked to his identity.  

EDIT: Ironically it looks like you have just been discovered that you scammed today via a scamcoins

Lol, it's an attempt to discredit me by abusing the trust system(as is your post, obviously).

So you scammed people who invested in your altcoin, someone was made aware of it and pointed it out. You consider that to be an abuse of the trust system?

The purpose of default trust is to have trustworthy people point out other trustworthy people and untrustworthy people so others have somewhat of an idea as to who to trust. Since someone who is trustworthy pointed out that you are not (and that you scammed) then I now know not to trust you with my money (not that I would ever invest in an altcoin either way).

I personally think that anyone who tries to create a altcoin and profit off of it automatically deserves negative trust so with or without your red trust I would not trust you.

Chess is a game requiring patience, but its no fun when your opponent only knows how to play checkers.

More hyperbole.  You either have a hello Kitty forum or you have a Bitcoin forum.  You are right about the demographics part, most other forums are run by responsible adults and this one is run by dumb kids and delusional people.

they clearly know what they are doing though, so perhaps they are not dumb or delusional at all.  ;D

You don't see account trading at other forums because accounts at other forums do not have value. Accounts on this forum do.

Haha r3wt, I love how Blazr came back and just left you negative feedback. But you do deserve negative feedback for a variety of things you've done, or failed to do.

Any thoughts on if they're behind the phishing sprees a month or so ago? Email me if you do :)

Says the guy with this feedback rating:

Trust:   -1121: -26 / +29(29)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

it is called being an idiot-savant.

True, use escrow from a trusted party and you'll be fine :)

+1 Nothing worse than backstabbing assholes who pretend to be your friends.

Nah bro, i received my negative feedback from iGS already. you little bitches just mad :D

Thanks for acknowledging this point which many a moderator cannot.

I trust who I trust and the trust rating system has nothing to do with it.

Blazr should be removed / excluded from DefaultTrust. I think I've provided more than enough evidence, and Blazr's feedback for r3wt is quite blatant circumstantial evidence.

And you should be banned for scamming 4100 BTCitcoins