Bitcoin Forum

Other => Meta => Topic started by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 10:58:53 PM



Title: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Disclaimer: I did not know at first that Mabsark is not in the DefaultTrust. He was on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, who is on DefaultTrust. Now, as CanaryInTheMine has acted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.msg9812615#msg9812615) at his will, I am free to escalate the issue. Henceforth, I am updating my request. The original request is kept intact as you will find below.

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18614 (CanaryInTheMine)

I used to know CanaryInTheMine as a reputed member of the community. I am not a very knowledgeable person regarding his activities. Though, there are many posts in this thread suggesting partiality in his judgement, I would like to point a certain post that I find very to the point and logical to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust.

-snip-

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

-snip-
I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127  additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him.

One very good example of this is the user  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771). I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine

I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust.

If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=795609.0;all). Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.


The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock.

There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text.




*********************************Original Post************************************

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

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

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. Interestingly, he has not left -ve feedback on Hashie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=386468), who has already made a scam by deleting the user's referral data from their database. The reason behind this is Hashie is now reselling AM hash.

So, Mabsark is clearly showing partial attitude in trust. Here is another guy mentioning the same...

So far I have no complaints.

Only thing pathetic here is how competitors are abusing trust system and giving negative feedback based on their assumptions. When they do something wrong then it's ok.
"I will give you negative feedback unless you give me info I want from you" - it's really fucked up Mabsark.

Hence, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 10, 2014, 11:07:06 PM
User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

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

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. So, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.
let me get this straight... you don't like what and/or how Mabsark says/communicates? and therefore he should be removed from defaulttrust?
do I have this right?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 10, 2014, 11:11:29 PM
I don't see him on Default Trust?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:11:42 PM
User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

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

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. So, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.
let me get this straight... you don't like what and/or how Mabsark says/communicates? and therefore he should be removed from defaulttrust?
do I have this right?

Mabsark can say/communicate whatever he wants. He is already doing that for long. But if he gives trust for his financial benefit, he needs to be removed from DefaultTrust. Because when a new user joins, he automatically inherits DefaultTrust.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:16:03 PM
I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 10, 2014, 11:17:13 PM
I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

I see many he has added negative to yet most are not red.
BTW, I added DefaultTrust and same thing. Is he on your Trust list?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:20:11 PM
I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

I see many he has added negative to yet most are not red.
BTW, I added DefaultTrust and same thing. Is he on your Trust list?

No, I dont trust whimsical people.

Do u see the following profiles in -ve ?

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

v. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 10, 2014, 11:21:35 PM
Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:23:12 PM
Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

What is your Trust depth ?

So far I dont trust anyone.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 10, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

What is your Trust depth ?

So far I dont trust anyone.

1


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
I think he should be as well, is abusing the trust system. He does not like the fact that I do not think havelock is serviceing the community "they allow shit IPO's". So he gave me negative trust cause he things that I am spreading fud... I only say things that I can prove and If I make a mistake I will appoligize.


I have asked him nicely to remove it as its just him honestly "griefing". But he seems to stand behind his stand on not having the right to voice a opinion.


Guys understand this persons first lang is spanish as well so he may not be able to communicate as well as need be to express himself.




Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 10, 2014, 11:25:50 PM
Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;

Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.

The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:27:51 PM
It also makes it difficult for me to do background checks, people are like why should I trust you? You have a red mark next to your name... then I have to explain that someone does not agree with my view so they gave me negative trust. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH not being trustworthy.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 10, 2014, 11:28:41 PM
Changing the level, he is on CanaryInTheMine's list. He would be the one you'd have to contact.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:31:15 PM
The really screwed up part was he gave me negative trust when he had no depth level... then when he got depth level it popped up. I was like WTF never even noticed it before that.


Yea I am looking at all the feedback he has given none of it is for actual actions that call for it, its all cause he disagrees with the other person.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:36:29 PM
Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;

Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.

The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.

Welcome back :)

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, Mabsark, Jimmothy, raskul and a few others have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

No problem. But, that does not allow u to make all your competing businesses red, whatever u think about them. None of them has held u at gun point to do business with them. I believe, they dint even sent a PM to u. U guys only jumping in every thread to disturb communication.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:39:24 PM
Thats what he gave me negative trust for was talking negative about havelock. Trust should only be given for trades or attempted trades aka "Scams" Not for what someone is saying. If you do not like what someone is saying they got this feature on the board called "Ignore"


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:41:50 PM
Changing the level, he is on CanaryInTheMine's list. He would be the one you'd have to contact.

I used to know CanaryInTheMine is a well respected member of the community. How come this psycho got into his list ? As I can see, CanaryInTheMine is already informed and I replied to his Q. Now, it is up to him...

I checked https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18614 and Mabsark is not there. Can u plz tell me how did u find his connection with CanaryInTheMine ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:42:37 PM
Yea I can see him in level 2 trust but I do not see how he got there.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 10, 2014, 11:43:04 PM
It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:45:48 PM
It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?


But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:47:34 PM
It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?


Stop eye washing. The thread u hold in your signature clearly pushes HaveLock stocks that u own.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:49:23 PM
Just Ignore each other lol thats what the button is for.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 10, 2014, 11:49:30 PM
How is that an abuse of the trust system. For leaving negative feedback, it quite clearly states:

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I strongly believe that these services are ponzis (as do other users) and have left them negative feedback in accordance with the reasons outlined by this site.

With PB Mining just collapsing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.0) a lot of people have just lost a lot of money. The cloud mining companies that I've gave negative trust to have all refused to provide any evidence of their legitimacy, acting in the same way as PB did. People need to be warned of this before they get ripped off. It's pretty useless warning them afterwards.

If those companies are legitimate and provide evidence of that, then I'll remove those ratings like I said.

As for Riverboat, he was pretty much trying to extort Havelock into using his background checking service and lied about a conversation we had, as explained here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795360).


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 10, 2014, 11:52:28 PM
Stop eye washing. The thread u hold in your signature clearly pushes HaveLock stocks that u own.

You really havent bothered to just glance over my post history, have you? You really think I own, say, cryptx shares? Go over to the cryptx thread starting in June or July and find out what an utter fool you make of yourself with these accusations.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 10, 2014, 11:54:37 PM
With PB Mining just collapsing a lot of people have just lost a lot of money. The cloud mining companies that I've gave negative trust to have all refused to provide any evidence of their legitimacy, acting in the same way as PB did. People need to be warned of this before they get ripped off. It's pretty useless warning them afterwards.

If those companies are legitimate and provide evidence of that, then I'll remove those ratings like I said.

As for Riverboat, he was pretty much trying to extort Havelock into using his background checking service and lied about a conversation we had, as explained [urlhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795360]here[/url].

All these companies are paying consistently so far. Why on earth they'll give u the exact evidence u r looking for ? BTC-e is also doing business without giving any evidence of who they are. Stunna & Dooglus both are doing business without giving any evidence of their identity. Companies are free to provide evidence as per their choice and customers are free to decide on their will. Who r u to play the judge ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 10, 2014, 11:55:58 PM
The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.

Secondly, he does not have proof that these users/companies are scamming (this is by his own admission in the trust that he left). He essentially says that the companies have not proven themselves to be legitimate and that he will remove negative trust once they have proven themselves to not be scamming. Negative trust should only be given when someone has actually scammed or there is strong evidence the person is trying to scam/is in the process of scamming. Additionally I would say that the majority of users here value the concept of innocent until proven guilty which means that evidence needs to be presented that the companies in question are scamming, not to say that the companies must prove they are not scamming.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 10, 2014, 11:57:17 PM
But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

I count 16 instances of negative trust  in your profile. Id say its pretty likely mabsark had valid concerns too.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 10, 2014, 11:58:29 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795972#msg9795972

Quote
I know what happend you got postive trust all a sudden so thats the day it showed up, I appoligize. You should not concern yourself with what I say, its other peoples choice to trust what I say or not. I hope someone give you negative trust ;) Pretty sure its coming actually lol

I do not think you understand what the trust system is for, its for when people trade not talk. As talking is a right I could tell everyone the moon is going to fall into the earth tomorrow its up to them to either read it or not.

You are just taking advantage of the broken trust system to PUSH YOUR views on others which is wrong, any real person would just put someone on ignore if they did not want to read what they had to say.


Did you miss the bold part there bud? If I am wrong I admit it, its called taking responsibility for your actions. I can admit when I am wrong can you?


Have you looked at VODS lol LOOK AT THE USERS Giving it you will get the picture lol

Killerloop X3 times left same crap he is mad cause I called Ardeva out for giving users a false sense of saftey "Pretty sure this is jayc89 or his but buddy see here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517340.msg5721016#msg5721016  Badbear calls him a liar."
sereno X2 calling out ponzis in the gambling section.
zoata87 Calling out bitbay and its shit show
1RuneKing shill of Flirtcoin creator who has negative trust of his own for runing a ponzi then started flirtcoin
evershawn need I say more?
120cycle ponzi operator
riverboatsink do I need to explain this?
ponjava Ponzi in gambling section
spixel - Ponzi supporter in gambling section


And if you look at my actual transactions with trusted members of the community the are all positive.

But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

I count 16 instances of negative trust  in your profile. Id say its pretty likely mabsark had valid concerns too.

Now find one that is of actual value please. Here let me help you the ones for actual trades are positive.
TwinWinNerD 3: -0 / +4(4)   2014-12-02   0.00000000      He looked someone up for me
Wardrick 1: -0 / +3(3)   2014-06-05   0.00000000      Sold me a Walmart GC for BTC. Recommended trader. +1


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 07:46:11 AM
<snip>

raskul and a few others have HaveLock stocks



not fucking likely mate. i only mine with my own rigging.

1 x SP31
1 x SP20
3 x SP10
2 x S3+

why the fuck would I need to invest in a dodgy PO that guarantees no return whatsoever?

you are deluded.

My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is done to assist this community and BTC as a whole, due to the fact that there are far too many fraudsters who think they can get away with hiding a ponzi pyramid scheme under the guise of 'cloud mining'

9/10 of them are doing this and there are only a few who are genuine. none of which, I would invest in.
I give my vote of confidence to Mabsark.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: TeraBox on December 11, 2014, 10:58:42 AM

Quote
My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is a lie right here, all customers who got any contracts by July 2014 got paid out their investment and got some small profit. You on the other hand are promoting your own rigs for mining and this is the main reason why you don't like competition.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 11:01:03 AM

Quote
My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is a lie right here, all customers who got any contracts by July 2014 got paid out their investment and got some small profit. You on the other hand are promoting your own rigs for mining and this is the main reason why you don't like competition.

not a lie, my customer number with pbmining is #51. I was promised a 5 year contract therefore i will have significant losses to the promises of pbmining.

my own rigs are here:
http://mmpool.org/user/rgs
as I already stated in your scam thread

occasionally i put them onto nicehash, which is a REAL cloud mining service (unlike your own fraudulent ponzi scheme).
please give evidence of your benign allegations.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: tmfp on December 11, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
I have no horse in this race, but am actively looking for genuine opportunities to invest coin.
I have looked at many ventures asking for investment, from arbitrage to cloud mining and cannot believe how low the bar is set.
In the fiat world, these glossy, vague websites promising high ROI would be laughed at and discounted by anyone with a measure of good sense.
Some of these are on the level of Nigerian 419's and barely more sophisticated, but still seem to attract funds from similarly unsophisticated people.
Although 'innocent until proven guilty' is a valuable principle, this is not a court of law here. The trust system allows Mabsark and others to leave negative feedback based on their opinions and I don't agree that he and others are abusing it.
His critics say that he leaves negative feedback in order to make his own investments more attractive. Having read much of this, I personally think that is an excuse for people who play ponzis and see his actions as a threat to their 'game' to denigrate the value of his healthy skepticism.
Now it seems a trust war is beginning.
If that means confused newbies will research more before parting with coin, then that will be a positive side effect.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: John (John K.) on December 11, 2014, 03:53:00 PM
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 11, 2014, 04:03:52 PM
To be honest, I'm considering leaving negative trust for you SS. It is pretty blatant that you are not just a victim of PBmining but are doing your damndest to keep all these ponzis going for as long as possible. I would consider you to be just as complicit as the operators of the ponzis, and don't trust a thing you say on that basis.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 11, 2014, 04:25:16 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 04:26:57 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

the trust system is borked?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: John (John K.) on December 11, 2014, 04:33:46 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?
I'm thinking of giving a positive feedback to Mabsark to even out his trust. I've went through his feedbacks to various 'cloud miners', and to be honest I do find his opinion of them mostly substantiated.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: tmfp on December 11, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 11, 2014, 04:38:44 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

Because CanaryintheMine has der_troll in his trust list as well. Look at Hierarchical view at the bottom of the page to see who is on who's list.

Quote
        Luke-Jr
        Miner-TE
        Noitev
        eleuthria
        luv2drnkbr
        Digigami
        gmaxwell
        E
        zapeta
        bitpop
        Mabsark
        redcomet
        ipxtreme
        Philj
        os2sam
        yxt
        knybe
        Trance104
        sveetsnelda
        conv3rsion
        tlr
        bitcoin-rigs.com
        Vod
        dtmcnamara
        notme
        FCTaiChi
        Mushroomized
        mainichi
        greeners
        dribbits
        echris1
        SaltySpitoon
        bitcoiner49er
        BadBear
        freshzive
        arklan
        glendall
        Pistachio
        tarrant_01
        tbcoin
        ElideN
        friedcat
        Bees Brothers
        Christoban
        Stale
        af_newbie
        eroxors
        camolist
        MrTeal
        cncguru
        Mendacium
        PsychoticBoy
        Dabs
        mem
        Namworld
        lky_svn
        420
        mr2dave
        DobZombie
        gektek
        johnny5
        dyingdreams
        Zillions
        phrog
        Domrada
        Mapuo
        philipma1957
        jborkl
        RicRock
        jmutch
        MonocleMan
        b!z
        CoinHoarder
        absinth
        mitty
        (^_^)
        der_troll
        soy
        super3
        iluvpcs
        batt01
        xstr8guy
        MJGrae
        mobile
        nubbins
        ThickAsThieves
        hephaist0s
        BitcoinValet
        Timzim103
        Rounder
        Nemo1024
        TheXev
        ibminer
        Mooshire
        Benny1985
        mrbrt
        hanti
        ssinc
        Kaega
        finlof
        True___Blue
        elchorizo
        fewerlaws
        bitterdog
        Swimmer63
        locksmith9
        Krellan
        Spendulus
        MikeMike
        statdude
        bluespaceant
        Hiroaki
        keeron
        Bigdaddyaz
        Polyatomic
        palmface
        flowdab
        SpaceCadet
        photon
        dwdoc
        xzempt
        jdany
        mackstuart
        bmoconno
        jdot007
        mrtg
        maxpower
        xjack
        CommanderVenus
        daddyfatsax
        Plesk
        helipotte
        aurel57
        gambitv
        boyohi
        LaserHorse
        joeventura
        slashopt
        drofdelm
        canth
        zackclark70
        cdogster
        DBOD
        addzz
        DefaultTrust
        DustMite
        pixl8tr
        namoom
        blblr
        Taugeran
        arc45
        smscotten
        Cilantro
        chadtn
        kinger1331
        guytechie
        rumlazy
        fractalbc
        fforforest
        KyrosKrane
        ZBC3
        rj11248
        bitdigger2013
        Damnsammit
        jaslo
        BorisAlt
        ASICSAUCE
        sidehack
        steelcave
        Rotorgeek
        buyer99
        daddyhutch
        digeros
        west17m
        Trillium
        ziggysisland
        devthedev
        ryhan
        zac2013
        atomriot
        metal_jacke1
        Apheration
        spacebob
        2byZi
        terrapinflyer
        BenTheRighteous
        gsr18
        Paddy
        Jennifer Smith
        J_Dubbs
        00Smurf
        ldh37
        thomslik
        argakiig
        ManeBjorn
        Ski72
        suchmoon
        Thai

Beaten but I included a full list. :P


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.


People come into bitcointalk to learn about bitcoin and are like look at this childish ass shit.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 11, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: John (John K.) on December 11, 2014, 04:42:09 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: John (John K.) on December 11, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Canary added him in his trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) . Leaving trust does not add that person to your trust list I see.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 11, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 11, 2014, 04:47:29 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so.

You don't need to leave someone feedback to have them on your trust list.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 11, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BitCoinDream on December 11, 2014, 04:56:59 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 04:58:18 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 05:01:06 PM
No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BitCoinDream on December 11, 2014, 05:04:03 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.

Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 05:08:51 PM
Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.

No, it would only work for people like that, who have no 'enemy'. No one has incentive to give that guy negative trust, he hurt no one and did an amazing job.
However, try exposing GAWminer, or BFL once upon a time, and see what happens to your trust rating when one of the Josh's begins paying for negative feedback for any critics.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: John (John K.) on December 11, 2014, 05:11:19 PM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.



Agreed here as someone who've did this last time too. :P
Without a form of crowdsourcing the reviews on individual users, the sole admins and moderators here would've collapsed under the multitudes of scammers jumping up every day.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BitCoinDream on December 11, 2014, 05:11:55 PM
No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.

If someone is an idiot, he'll be scammed. On or off the internet. If u want to police that, then this is your only option...

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

On the other hand, when someone gets the power to decide what is a scam and what is not, that is inadvertently gonna be abused.

If you keep trust, but not DefaultTrust, then u r only trusting people by your choice. Forum is not spoon feeding you, which is far far better.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 11, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 05:37:39 PM
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.
businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.
those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.

with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 11, 2014, 06:01:23 PM
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.
I agree.
businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.
I disagree. There is no reason a business cannot operate anon. If a business is not anon then they would be subject to potential attacks from people trying to steal from their business. How many people know BadBear's real identity or his address? How many people know the same about Stunna, or Tomatocage, or Dobs, or Danny? With the exception of Danny, I don't think more then a handful of people (if any) know their real name, and probably no one knows their true address. Yet the community still trusts all of them tremendously.
those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.
Who gets to set these "regulations"? I have not seen any democratic process to set any kind of regulations required to adhere to to conduct business.
with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.
What are you talking about? This is not an example of the community "coming together" this is an example of one person leaving trust to other people


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 11, 2014, 06:09:25 PM
The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.
BadBear does business on here. Doing business as a "person" is essentially the same as doing business as a company as far as the experience and risk to the customer is concerned


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 07:10:32 PM
Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 11, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented. You instead steer the conversation away from my actual arguement because you cannot refrute it.

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams. It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming. A person's rank is essentially "proof of time spent on the forum" and there is no reason to trust someone solely on the fact they have spent a lot of time on the forum (or essentially paid for someone else's time on the forum). Signature campaigns are what allow Bitcoin related businesses to grow and advertise as other firms of advertisement are prohibitively expensive. Not allowing signature campaigns would further centralize Bitcoin related businesses into few large early entrants.

Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 11, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.
For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

I refuted your claim that badbear is not a business by the fact that he has done business on here and that the risk and experience to the person doing business with him is the same. My other examples all very much run businesses but you ignored those.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 07:49:52 PM
...and retorts with personal abuse...
For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

you are someone who makes money from people who wish to defraud people by buying trusted forum accounts.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 11, 2014, 07:55:20 PM
Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 11, 2014, 07:57:38 PM
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded.

couldn't agree more. What he is doing is not abuse, it is actually good use. whats wrong with informing the community of a possible ponzi scheme, if its not it should not effect their business and in light of the ponzi backed mining collapse most of these services should be providing proof of hashing, we wouldn't want more people getting goxed would we?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.

Quote
It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming.

Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.

Quote
Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65207;sa=showPosts) which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 11, 2014, 08:31:28 PM
Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 11, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 08:32:57 PM
You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.

Quote
It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming.

Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.

Quote
Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65207;sa=showPosts) which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.

3620 post shows that you are quite committed to this community and all that it stands for.
respect.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 11, 2014, 08:43:18 PM

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.
leaving negative feedback against a possible ponzi to warn others is a good thing.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.
He owns shares in Asicminer, not havelock so has no stake in havelock success. Asicminer has been traded off exchange in the past with great success.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.
Many Asicminer shareholders are voicing their concerns regarding the recent relation with hashie, Mabsark  i believe is one of them. My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 11, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:

Code:
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 08:52:39 PM
My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 11, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

I always enjoy your input bt really hope you are wrong on this one. I sadly don't like the hashie relation very much, i still trust FC though,but that doe snot mean i trust hashie.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
really hope you are wrong on this one.

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet :).


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 09:08:24 PM
My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

i have previously raised concerns about publicly floated companies who are not part of, or regulated by the normal process of public liability.
I know a lot about public liability, having worked 17 years as a news photographer and the reason I, myself have never committed to investing in anything on havelock is because it is simply a rogue website (however you want to look at it) where public liability is of no concern to those who list stocks, nor to the entity which is havelock. I'll elaborate on what i mean by public liability (specifically, in stocks)...

Granted, havelock purport to have a selection process which seems in the onset, quite rigorous but it does not detract from the facts that if a company like AMHash wish to feed next generation after next generation after next generation with these publicly floated stocks, they can - and, they have been doing this. in the real world, this wouldn't have gotten past AM2 for the simple fact that investments were made into next GEN (and a new PO launched) prior to divs being paid.

I feel that there is a bigger debate to be had on this and I don't want to go too far off-topic in this thread, from my own vote of confidence in Mabsark and his entitlement to leave the trust that he has left for a scheme which, of course, looks in the entirety to be fraudulent.
again, Mabsark has my vote of confidence RE: the OP.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 11, 2014, 09:17:26 PM
1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:

Code:
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

- Same logic applies to HaveLock. Just like PB mining has fallen, BTCT & GLBSE has fallen too. So why did not you leave -ve feedback on HaveLock and on the companies trying to rip off people through HaveLock ? Just because U *think* they are good boy ?

2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

- When I say someone is a shareholder of NYSE, it means he owns a stock that is traded on NYSE.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.

- U r dodging my Q. I asked u about a specific company which has already scammed people by deleting the referral table from database.


The motto of the whole group that is doing hulla-hoop over here is simple. This group can mostly be identified by their sig containing different companies traded on HaveLock. A few are also pushing through various threads they create. The motto is to push stock values up by applying Goebbels theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). You guys have bought them low and wanna sell them high.

By the way, why dont u ask for a pic of your God, err FriedCat ? Is it crime to ask for the pic of a person who returned 200 BTC in one day (https://blockchain.info/tx/b18abce37b48a5f434f108ae7ce34f22aa2bfbd9eb9310314029e4b9e3c7cf95) and raised 800 BTC in one week (https://blockchain.info/address/1QDDUAVzXzwtqNxjY2m13CUwm67awWWoUX) ? That would help u to worship him when HaveLock crashes !!!


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 11, 2014, 09:22:17 PM
picking and choosing whom to debate with

<!!!>

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 11, 2014, 10:13:23 PM
really hope you are wrong on this one.

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet :).

I know, I almost took the bet as i knew it would go down, but instead made a stupid comment about a  gentlemen's club.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 11, 2014, 10:24:52 PM
Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.



I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on December 11, 2014, 10:56:21 PM
Quote
I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

How about changing the negative to neutral?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 11, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:

http://i.imgur.com/Q0aA1Vu.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 12, 2014, 12:13:07 AM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:

http://i.imgur.com/Q0aA1Vu.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 12, 2014, 12:16:07 AM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:

http://i.imgur.com/Q0aA1Vu.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?
Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: scarsbergholden on December 12, 2014, 12:32:37 AM
picking and choosing whom to debate with

<!!!>

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,

???

How or why is he considered a trusted member of the community in your eyes? As far as I can tell from his trust feedback he has done very few deals over a short period of time. I am not really sure why he was ever put on default trust in the first place.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: der_troll on December 12, 2014, 01:34:37 AM
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:

http://i.imgur.com/Q0aA1Vu.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?
Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: deluxeCITY on December 12, 2014, 02:33:40 AM
-snip-

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

-snip-
I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127  additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him.

One very good example of this is the user  suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771). I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine

I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust.

If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=795609.0;all). Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.


The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock.

There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 12, 2014, 03:10:22 AM
With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: deluxeCITY on December 12, 2014, 03:23:00 AM
With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.
15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

and 15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 12, 2014, 03:45:07 AM
With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.
15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

and 15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i
Not sure how any of those apply, as I don't have any stake in AMHASH, an account on Havelock or any shares of any cloud mining operation. Moreover, I haven't made any false statements.

Besides all that,
Quote from: TheSEC
Swaps are financial contracts in which two counterparties agree to exchange or "swap" payments with each other as a result of such things as changes in a stock price, interest rate or commodity price.
Even if I did have AMHASH shares (which I don't) on Havelock (where I'm not) and I was slandering PBmining not because it was a ponzi but because it was a legitimate threat the AMHASH (which it's not, as it's now an imploded ponzi), that still wouldn't be a swap as there is no agreement to swap payments based on a change in price.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: redsn0w on December 12, 2014, 06:10:40 AM
This forum is amazing every day  new story , I think we need a new trust system (or better a *check_up* to the actual defaultTrust list ).


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 12, 2014, 08:12:05 AM
With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

Thats a bit rich really. Aside from the actual security regulation violations that are almost certainly being committed by havelock & co, most if not all the issuers on such sites, and every other issuer that creates a secondary market; how  could I possibly 'pump and dump' when first of all, I have never recommended buying any bitcoin security ever, and secondly, I dont have a thing to 'dump'.

Quote

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. 

Yeah because we all know scambusting is an official and heavily regulated profession  ::)

I will say I fully agree with you on canary's trust issue.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 10:05:02 AM
Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 12, 2014, 10:43:28 AM
Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

Everyone serves their own interests. That doesn't mean they can't serve the interests of others as well though. Stopping scams before they can rip people off is in the best interests of the whole community I'd say. Wouldn't you? Those companies I left negative feedback on are not rivals. They're scams. If they're not scams, then they'd be able to provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. They've been asked many times by many people and simply refuse to do so. If they do so, I will remove the feedback like I said. AMHashs's rivals are CEX.io, Hashnest, KNC Cloud and PetaMine. Do you see me leaving any negative feedback for those services?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 10:46:38 AM
Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

Everyone serves their own interests. That doesn't mean they can't serve the interests of others as well though. Stopping scams before they can rip people off is in the best interests of the whole community I'd say. Wouldn't you? Those companies I left negative feedback on are not rivals. They're scams. If they're not scams, then they'd be able to provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. They've been asked many times by many people and simply refuse to do so. If they do so, I will remove the feedback like I said. AMHashs's rivals are CEX.io, Hashnest, KNC Cloud and PetaMine. Do you see me leaving any negative feedback for those services?

You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

My comment was more on the trust system. I am not aware of the details of cloud mining to reliable judge your actions. CanaryInTheMine has taken his stance so now its his responsibility.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 12, 2014, 10:47:03 AM
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? ;)

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.


Yet you still find yourself in the middle of these disputes some how...

Involving disinterested 3rd parties in trust moderation is a failed policy.
Centralized policing of the trust system is a failed policy.

Until Theymos wises up an realizes this he is going to personally participate in shredding this community from the inside out with his own hands. Threads like this will come up more and more until they are just like the good old "centralized communist system" days, only with a nice pretend veneer of a distributed system to make it look like legitimate community consensus. People are free to point out trust abuse, and in many cases extreme abusers are themselves tagged with negatives from other respected community members. You guys CLAIM you don't want to have to deal with disputes, but you are CONSTANTLY INJECTING YOURSELVES INTO THEM.

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

As a member that was on default trust, comment of selling your account should be taken seriously and with consequences, i doubt many would trust you after writing something so stupid.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 10:54:32 AM
This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

As a member that was on default trust, comment of selling your account should be taken seriously and with consequences, i doubt many would trust you after writing something so stupid.

It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:04:48 AM
It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.

You have public evidence to support this, apart from their word?

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess :)


regardless of it being in offtopic, it reads like he was willing to sell his account for the right price, being a couple of bitcoins.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 11:08:26 AM
It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.

You have public evidence to support this, apart from their word?

https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php

regardless of it being in offtopic, it reads like he was willing to sell his account for the right price, being a couple of bitcoins.

Accounts in default trust get sold all the time. For instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890434.0


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 12, 2014, 11:11:00 AM
You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

I didn't want to leave neutral feedback. Like I said earlier, when leaving negative feedback it states.

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I'm using the system as intended.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:11:36 AM
Accounts in default trust get sold all the time. For instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890434.0

smart enough to use a throw away to sell the account worth more though.

Anybody willing to buy a legendary, default trusted account will be doing so to scam.

To any potential buyers, there is a good chance that you will be easily caught so be careful.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:13:58 AM
The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
November 20, 2014, 06:04:19 AM - malaimult - password changed

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess :)



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 12, 2014, 11:16:40 AM
Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.



I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

OP updated. Awaiting to hear from theymos.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 11:16:44 AM
The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
November 20, 2014, 06:04:19 AM - malaimult - password changed

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess :)


I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:19:07 AM
I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 11:19:33 AM
You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

I didn't want to leave neutral feedback. Like I said earlier, when leaving negative feedback it states.

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I'm using the system as intended.

I am not defending you or der_troll. Personally, I feel you've a vested interest, but I don't have conviction or the power to influence anything.

It would be an interesting case to see how the trust system works.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 11:21:05 AM
I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

That does make it suspicious. Still, its a big accusation and I would urge you to show restraint. One of them may not be a good writer or lazy and copied it.

Once an accusation is made publicly it sticks even if it is later found out to be incorrect.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:21:42 AM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.




Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 12, 2014, 11:25:36 AM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 11:38:22 AM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

I am not judging or accusing, i am merely speculating on small pieces of information gathered. There is no conclusive evidence but there are some dots linking the two if you like to speculate.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 12, 2014, 11:42:12 AM
I am not defending you or der_troll. Personally, I feel you've a vested interest, but I don't have conviction or the power to influence anything.

Oh, I got that. I was just pointing out that I was using the trust system as intended. I've also just removed negative feedback from one service like I said I would if they could just provide a shred of evidence.

I do have a vested interest, as does der_troll. My interest lies with customers choosing an unquestionably legitimate service. Der_troll's interest lies with customers choosing an almost certain cloud mining ponzi. Also, given that I used the Trust system how it's meant to be used based on the descriptions of the options, his negative feedback complaining about me abusing the trust system is hypocritical. That would be the actual abuse of the system given that I'm not a scammer and he has no reason to suspect me of being a scammer.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: der_troll on December 12, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

Copy/paste, why? Because it was all well put by malaimult. What's the point of rewriting it?



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 12, 2014, 01:14:38 PM
this thread is becoming ridiculous.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: redsn0w on December 12, 2014, 01:16:07 PM
this thread is becoming ridiculous.


This thread is ... awesome ! It is not ridiculous, it will be helpful for theymos  because I think we will need a new trust system in the *new* forum software.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: der_troll on December 12, 2014, 01:24:23 PM
Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...but I'm a bad guy who needs to be removed from Canary default trust because of that comment. And as pointed by member here my password did not change and my account is still mine....

This is just ridiculous where this forum is heading.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Muhammed Zakir on December 12, 2014, 01:36:54 PM
Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...but I'm a bad guy who needs to be removed from Canary default trust because of that comment. And as pointed by member here my password did not change and my account is still mine....

This is just ridiculous where this forum is heading.

A global mode was offered much higher (>=5x) but he declined. 95% isn't right, you may want to lower it. According to your post, you may sell it if you are offered a good price. So, Canary removed you from DT. ::)

   ~~MZ~~


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 12, 2014, 01:49:21 PM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.




Nah, I don't think so.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 03:30:10 PM
this thread is becoming ridiculous.

it's fun though..... Amazed at the title change, remove CITM from deault trust..... madness.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: elasticband on December 12, 2014, 03:33:25 PM
Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...

No way would i sell my account or 50btc+, i value my reputation and honor more than that, the fact that again you have openly said you would sell your account is valid reason enough for CITM not to trust you. he does not want to trust someone willing to sell their account then that is his prerogative.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: redsn0w on December 12, 2014, 03:34:30 PM
I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: hilariousandco on December 12, 2014, 03:48:26 PM
I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 12, 2014, 04:08:44 PM
I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 12, 2014, 05:43:28 PM
Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 12, 2014, 05:46:04 PM
Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.

The same way Mabsark & MrTeal ended up in his trust list. Canary has lost his credibility to be in DefaultTrust.

Canary leads Group buys from FriedCat led AsicMiner and whoever joins there gets into his trust list. Now, if anyone goes against FriedCat will be thrown out of his trust list, because that is a conflict of interest for Canary. This is utter nonsense.

BadBear clearly stated that der_troll is not an alt and from the password change history, it is also clear that his password was not changed. So, that is the original owner, but Canary threw him out of his trust list for conflict of interest.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.




Nah, I don't think so.




Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Chris_Sabian on December 12, 2014, 09:24:37 PM
this thread is becoming ridiculous.

Well, this thread has just added a bunch of people to my ignore list and my personal distrust list.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Stargazer on December 12, 2014, 11:11:45 PM
<snip>

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.

This!

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 12, 2014, 11:36:15 PM

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Stargazer on December 12, 2014, 11:58:28 PM

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 13, 2014, 12:13:33 AM

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 02:15:50 AM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.
This is ridiculous. You conclude that just because two people have the same opinion that you do not agree with that they must be a puppet of eachother. This just shows how open you are when discussing this.

I also question you regarding your (un)paid signature. Anyone who sees a paid signature advertisement can reasonably conclude the reason someone is wearing a signature of one of the companies that you claim to be a scam - they are being paid to do so. With your signature on the other hand there is no such clear incentive. Both yourself and others who appear to be trustworthy because of a small circle of people giving each-other trust are in the same situation, along with others who appear to be random are wearing the signature of a thread that is one sided (and self moderated to prevent an opposing side to voice their counter points) that claims the competition of the site you are promoting is a scam.

To put it another way:
  • You are wearing a signature promoting a specific company
  • The company is not your own
  • There is no clear evidence you are getting paid to promote such company
  • There is no affiliate/referral link to track how much traffic/business you bring to the site discrediting any potential claim you receive any kind of referral income for wearing your signature. 
  • From what I can tell these signature went up at all the approximate same time
  • From what I can tell these signatures are exactly the same with somewhat complex formatting features

The above would make me conclude that you are either all puppets of ASICminer in order to get more people to buy shares so the operator can run away with investor money (just because mining power is "real" does not mean the operator is forced to deliver mining revenue to shareholders), or are all colluding to pump the price of AM1 that you all own.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: xuan87 on December 13, 2014, 02:49:07 AM


People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust.

-SNIP-

This part is crucial for me.
What if the trusted member make a new account and make it trustable ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: Stargazer on December 13, 2014, 02:50:56 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days ;)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 13, 2014, 03:00:33 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 03:10:56 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 13, 2014, 03:14:04 AM
I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days ;)

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on December 13, 2014, 03:16:40 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)
I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 13, 2014, 04:19:47 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days ;)

It's naive to think you can stop multiple accounts, you can't. I'm not going to sit here and list all the ways to do it, but suffice it to say the scammers know all of them, and it isn't very hard. It's their livelihood, it's what they do, and most of them are good at what they do. Multiple negative ratings by the same user already do not increase one's negative rating, but they shouldn't be stopped from giving more than one because there may be more than one issue at stake (there are good reasons to leave more than one negative feedback, and there are bad). Trust spam does get removed.

Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible.

If the trust list itself didn't exist and all comments were given equal weight, it would just turn into a numbers game, and scammers/spammers would win that game by a large margin. I found a spammer/account farmer in the local boards with over 130 accounts, and they weren't newbie accounts either. Under your system, that guy, if he wanted, would probably be the highest trusted member on the forums, lol. I've found other spammers with similar numbers, or even more.

Also newbies wouldn't know who to trust, and just throwing newbies in the water with the sharks when they don't know sharks exist (most forums ban anyone who's even suspected of scamming) isn't right. And if you're going to say ban scammers, we have no interest in banning people from participating in the forum just because they are breaking a law. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Guy Fawkes, fuck it even Robin Hood just to make the point, all "criminals" who break laws. (Alleged) rapist, (alleged) treasonist, (attempted) mass murder, and theft. All Criminals who should be banned if they posted here?



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 04:39:26 AM
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)
I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.
He does have hundreds on his trust list, more specifically he has over 200 (201 as per an above post). I agree that he probably doesn't have everyone that has participated in a group buy on his trust list, but looking at the number of untrusted trust reports verses the number of trusted trust reports I would say that he puts most people who have participated in a group buy on his trust list.

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.
You are right, it is not possible not even try to come close to enforcing only allowing people to have one account, plus there are legit reasons for someone to post from another account (for example to post something controversial they do not want associated with their "real" account or to post an anon scam report with 'leaked' information). 

I very much agree that CanaryInTheMine should give positive feedback to people he has a positive experience trading with (this is really how most/all trades should result in) however he seems to also make a habit of adding them to his trust list which happens to also put them on default trust. Now once someone is on default trust they can leave fake feedback to their alternate accounts saying that they purchased something from these alternate accounts and that they risked large amounts of BTC. Going back to reading the feedback that someone has received, the alternate account now has the potential to scam someone who is looking to buy a certain product because a potential buyer would read the alternate account's trusted feedback and see several successful trades when the other party risked money so they might be willing to risk similar amounts of money. The person on default trust would have plausible deniability as they would claim that actual trades did in fact take place from the trust feedbacks given. 


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 13, 2014, 04:41:48 AM
...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...

This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).

Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 13, 2014, 06:22:10 AM
...This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES...

That sounds great, but reality doesn't always meet expectations. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. Nothing is stopping you from doing it now, nobody is forced to use default trust. Really the only people who should be using default trust are those who choose to, and new people with no idea who to trust. I don't even use just default trust, I chose to add it along with others to my trust list because I find it to be fairly accurate.  I've said it before, but default trust is a good starting point, and that's all it is, and that's all it was intended to be. (example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263067.msg2812517#msg2812517) People seem to be using it as the end all be all for everything, and that isn't what it's for.

I'm not a huge fan of default trust either, never have been (and really I could care less if I'm on it, last I checked I was pretty high up on the list of people in custom trust lists, and that's not counting people who didn't add me because I'm already in their list via default, so I'm highly trusted enough without it where I can do good within the community, and that's what's important), but I do recognize why it's needed. You don't see the need because you have been here a long time and know people, but there are a lot of people who haven't been here very long, and don't know anyone. Those are the ones who need the help.

I'm not going to derail this thread anymore with talk about defaulttrust though, this thread isn't about that.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove Mabsark from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 13, 2014, 06:32:55 AM
...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...

This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).

Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.

But as you said, those with a direct interest have reason to keep the default trust list under control. Thats fine and dandy for a "Default" Trust group. I honestly think that for new members joining the forums, Default Trust isn't a bad way to start off. By the time they are no longer newbies and can gauge the community, they can build their own trust groups. There is nothing stopping a decentralized trust network from starting in tandem with Default trust. If people are too lazy to switch from default trust to their own systems, that would be the case regardless of whether Default Trust was in play or not. By the time you are around a while, you realize trusted trust and untrusted trust don't make a difference, you find yourself looking for specific names as references rather than green letters. For example Mabsark under CanaryInTheMine. I don't care if they are on default trust, I had no idea who they were before this thread, so I'm not going to value their feedback anymore than someone else I dont know. I'm looking for feedback from longtime members and businesspeople before I trade with someone.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 13, 2014, 06:48:00 AM
Going back on topic - it appears that Chris_Sabian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=110662) was recently added to CanaryInTheMine's trust list. I noticed because as of when this thread started Mabsark has zero trust feedback, however he now has a positive report from both CanaryInTheMine and Chris_Sabian. I had noticed that Chris had given Mabsark positive feedback a few days ago, but it was showing as 'untrusted'

When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in. It also appears that KaChingCoinDev (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=315167) was recently added to the bottom (last active November 10 2014), as well as sjc1490 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=329963) who appears to have given Canary feedback several months ago, along with FACTOM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=391985) which I have no idea why he is on his trust list as he was registered ~a month ago with 7 posts and no trade history.

I am not 100% sure on the above three (although if they were previously on his trust list, their position was recently moved, because I know that suchmoon was ~the 2nd from the bottom. I do know for certain that Chris_Sabian was not on default trust network previously


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Wardrick on December 13, 2014, 07:58:50 AM
I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: redsn0w on December 13, 2014, 11:11:16 AM
I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Good suggestions , but  maybe   theymos can add the function "report"  near the feedback so we can easily report the "fake"  & *abused* feedback.

[it is only a suggestion]


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Muhammed Zakir on December 13, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Good suggestions , but  maybe   theymos can add the function "report"  near the feedback so we can easily report the "fake"  & *abused* feedback.

[it is only a suggestion]

That would be good IMHO. How about restricting newbies from giving feedback till they get 14 points or become Jr. Member? It would decrease the pain for moderators. ::)

   ~~MZ~~


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: theymos on December 13, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.

That list is ordered by user ID, not added time.

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 13, 2014, 05:52:06 PM
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 13, 2014, 10:12:03 PM
I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 14, 2014, 12:36:46 AM
I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?

You are correct about one thing, the staff not caring to get involved in disputes. We aren't the government out to protect bank account balances or to tell people to play nice, we are pretty much here just to keep things organized and to step in when there are major issues ie death threats, etc. This is a public forum, you can come here to chat with other people of similar ideology or that are interested in similar technologies. We aren't interested in babysitting or problem solving, if adults can't solve their own problems, then thats on them. If people don't like Default Trust, remove it from your trust lists, if you don't like CanaryInTheMine's trust picks, remove CanaryInTheMine from your trust list, no one is helpless.

I haven't reviewed the people on CanaryInTheMine's list, nor do I care to. Because as above, its not really my problem, people can work out any issues with other parties involved. But I agree with their above post to an extent.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 14, 2014, 12:57:05 AM
I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).



Your right, brother. The problem is if someone does not care for your view of something and they have positive trust and you do nor BOOM red name. TRUST only be given for transactions or attempted transactions. With some kind of gain or loss, And It should have to be tied to a SPECIFIC instance or removed.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 14, 2014, 03:05:30 AM
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SaltySpitoon on December 14, 2014, 03:14:09 AM
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 14, 2014, 03:44:17 AM
CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-11   0.00000000      keeps an eye out on possible scammers

^^^ Hilarious that was the same thing I was doing that he gave me negative trust for lol (just cause it involved havelock where we all know he has a vested interest)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 14, 2014, 04:22:05 AM
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.
But the thing is that he is doing something very close to that. He is putting almost anyone who gives him positive trust on his trust list, which improves his trust score. As a result he has a extremely high trust score (probably the highest, or close to the highest on the forum) which means it is essentially fruitless to open a scam accusation against him if he were to short you a miner or otherwise not deliver as promised.

Also every person who has recently been involved in something that caused them to be removed from default trust list has involved CanaryInTheMine in some way, including people who have tried to scam. You say that he is putting his reputation on the line by putting people on his trust list, but there have been many instances of problems with people on his trust list but he has both remained trust worthy and remained on default trust.

Plus it is not realistically possible to tell when you are in control of multiple accounts so theymos would probably not even know if/when CanaryInTheMine has his puppets on his trust list giving himself positive trust feedback


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 14, 2014, 09:50:30 AM
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

Nah, I don't think so.


This should be reminder not to throw accusations as 'fun speculation'. BadBear might not be always available to answer and it will lead to ruining someone's reputation.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 15, 2014, 08:03:14 AM
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 15, 2014, 11:25:19 AM
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:10:29 PM
Mabsark's use of the trust system is a bit curious.  I warned him about two of his "investments" being scams.  When those investments turned out to be scams, he left me this feedback:

http://s2.postimg.org/mypv4its9/Capture.jpg

Not sure if this is how the trust system was intended to work. 


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 02:12:46 PM

^ true though.  :D


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:22:27 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 02:24:56 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:28:34 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."
P.S:  "Hate campaigns"?!  How, exactly, do you respond to scams?  Don't tell me, rhetorical--you turn the other cheek.  How's that been working out for you, tho?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 02:31:27 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:34:57 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 02:36:42 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:40:36 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.

It's like this:  If you listened to the people who left me negative feedback, you are now poorer than you would have been, had you listened to me.
So yeah, I guess that makes you a typical BTC enthusiast.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 15, 2014, 02:46:23 PM

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.
was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 02:47:53 PM
Code:
[quote author=raskul link=topic=888960.msg9846936#msg9846936 date=1418654202]
[quote author=NotLambchop link=topic=888960.msg9846921#msg9846921 date=1418654097]
[quote author=raskul link=topic=888960.msg9846883#msg9846883 date=1418653887]
[quote author=NotLambchop link=topic=888960.msg9846853#msg9846853 date=1418653714]
[quote author=raskul link=topic=888960.msg9846809#msg9846809 date=1418653496]
[quote author=NotLambchop link=topic=888960.msg9846781#msg9846781 date=1418653347]
[quote author=raskul link=topic=888960.msg9846701#msg9846701 date=1418652766]
[quote author=NotLambchop link=topic=888960.msg9846675#msg9846675 date=1418652629]
he left me this feedback:

[img]http://s2.postimg.org/mypv4its9/Capture.jpg[/img]


[/quote]

^ true though.  :D
[/quote]

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward :-\
[/quote]

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.
[/quote]

Please name the "legitimate securities."
[/quote]

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.
[/quote]

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical :-\
[/quote]

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.
[/quote]
It's like this:  If you listened to the people who left me negative feedback, you are now poorer than you would have been, had you listened to me.
So yeah, I guess that makes you a typical BTC enthusiast.
meanwhile...
It's actually like this:  The issue here is that you feel people are unable to make up their own minds. This is your own flaw, not Mabsark's. I have had a few discussions with Mabsark regarding a couple of issues and not once have I felt that he has tried to sway me one way or another.

There is a huge difference between discussing your opinion, and forcing your opinion on others. Where I have found Mabsark to be the former, you are the latter.
You sir are merely a troll who feeds on other's indecision.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:49:23 PM
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Puppet on December 15, 2014, 02:50:51 PM
Gonna side with notlambshop on this one. First, lets wiki the term troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]


By that definition, one might consider his colorful language trollish, but he's a troll you better listen to when the "normal on-topic discussion" is a circle jerk over some (usually soon to be worthless) security.  I dont think that warrants negative trust.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 02:52:35 PM
...
meanwhile...
It's actually like this:  The issue here is that you feel people are unable to make up their own minds. This is your own flaw, not Mabsark's. I have had a few discussions with Mabsark regarding a couple of issues and not once have I felt that he has tried to sway me one way or another.

There is a huge difference between discussing your opinion, and forcing your opinion on others. Where I have found Mabsark to be the former, you are the latter.
You sir are merely a troll who feeds on other's indecision.

Unless you feel I can crawl through the intertubes, I have not forced my opinion on anyone.  How can posting on a forum force anyone to do anything?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 15, 2014, 02:59:25 PM
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?
if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 03:01:22 PM
...
meanwhile...
It's actually like this:  The issue here is that you feel people are unable to make up their own minds. This is your own flaw, not Mabsark's. I have had a few discussions with Mabsark regarding a couple of issues and not once have I felt that he has tried to sway me one way or another.

There is a huge difference between discussing your opinion, and forcing your opinion on others. Where I have found Mabsark to be the former, you are the latter.
You sir are merely a troll who feeds on other's indecision.

Unless you feel I can crawl through the intertubes, I have not forced my opinion on anyone.  How can posting on a forum force anyone to do anything?

heavy trolling: one thread example.


@Havelock; provasic; cbcm.co:  I warned you to hunt responsibly, now it's too late.  The noble Bitcoin Investor has been hunted into extinction  >:(

The American Passenger Pigeon, once a staple food of American Indians, is now extinct.
Consider the chilling parallels between this noble bird's tragic tale and the plight of the Bitcoin Investor.

"At a nesting site in Petoskey, Michigan in 1878, 50,000 birds Bitcoin investors were killed each day for nearly five months. The surviving adults attempted a second nesting at new sites, but were killed by professional hunters before they had a chance to raise any young."[1]
...
"Still another way
[of hunting Bitcoin investors] was to simply set a nesting tree on fire, cooking the doves investors or collecting them as they tried to escape."[1]
...
"Two farmers from the vicinity of Russelsville, distant more than a hundred miles, had driven upwards of three hundred hogs to be fattened on the pigeons Bitcoin investors which were to be slaughtered. Here and there, the people employed in plucking and salting what had already been procured, were seen sitting in the midst of large piles of these birds amateur financiers. The dung lay several inches deep, covering the whole extent of the roosting-place."[1]


1.  Passenger Pigeon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon#Hunting



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 03:08:24 PM
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?
if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value.

Not sure how this would work.  He was "invested" in NeoBee and Active Mining, but he can always claim that his feedback was unrelated to these "investments."


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 03:12:12 PM
...
meanwhile...
It's actually like this:  The issue here is that you feel people are unable to make up their own minds. This is your own flaw, not Mabsark's. I have had a few discussions with Mabsark regarding a couple of issues and not once have I felt that he has tried to sway me one way or another.

There is a huge difference between discussing your opinion, and forcing your opinion on others. Where I have found Mabsark to be the former, you are the latter.
You sir are merely a troll who feeds on other's indecision.

Unless you feel I can crawl through the intertubes, I have not forced my opinion on anyone.  How can posting on a forum force anyone to do anything?

heavy trolling: one thread example.


@Havelock; provasic; cbcm.co:  I warned you to hunt responsibly, now it's too late.  The noble Bitcoin Investor has been hunted into extinction  >:(

The American Passenger Pigeon, once a staple food of American Indians, is now extinct.
Consider the chilling parallels between this noble bird's tragic tale and the plight of the Bitcoin Investor.

"At a nesting site in Petoskey, Michigan in 1878, 50,000 birds Bitcoin investors were killed each day for nearly five months. The surviving adults attempted a second nesting at new sites, but were killed by professional hunters before they had a chance to raise any young."[1]
...
"Still another way
[of hunting Bitcoin investors] was to simply set a nesting tree on fire, cooking the doves investors or collecting them as they tried to escape."[1]
...
"Two farmers from the vicinity of Russelsville, distant more than a hundred miles, had driven upwards of three hundred hogs to be fattened on the pigeons Bitcoin investors which were to be slaughtered. Here and there, the people employed in plucking and salting what had already been procured, were seen sitting in the midst of large piles of these birds amateur financiers. The dung lay several inches deep, covering the whole extent of the roosting-place."[1]


1.  Passenger Pigeon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon#Hunting


How does warning scammers securities issuers to curb their greed by highlighting the similarities between Bitcoin investors and the Passenger Pigeon force my opinion on anyone? 


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: raskul on December 15, 2014, 03:13:26 PM

How does warning scammers securities issuers

you just can't help yourself, can you? please feel free to read from that post onwards through the thread. That one post was the beginning of your little clique of trolls onslaught against that particular offering, which had already been clarified to be legitimate.
In that particular case, your clique of trolls was very heavy handed and most likely, IMHO caused the failure of that offering.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 03:15:23 PM

How does warning scammers securities issuers

you just can't help yourself, can you?

The securities forum is a festering cesspool of scam.  Not going to whitewash it.

Re. your edit:  Nothing has "been clarified to be legitimate," the offering was pulled because people stopped falling for this shit.  Hopefully, in a small part, thanks to me.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 15, 2014, 03:20:11 PM
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?
if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value.

Not sure how this would work.  He was "invested" in NeoBee and Active Mining, but he can always claim that his feedback was unrelated to these "investments."
It shows there is a connection. There is no reference link in his feedback which alone is bad. Sure he can say anything that he wants but giving evidence is always necessary to support your arguement that his trust rating is unjust


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 15, 2014, 03:42:54 PM
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?

Of course!  Several.  Why do you think he left me negative feedback?
if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value.

Not sure how this would work.  He was "invested" in NeoBee and Active Mining, but he can always claim that his feedback was unrelated to these "investments."
It shows there is a connection. There is no reference link in his feedback which alone is bad. Sure he can say anything that he wants but giving evidence is always necessary to support your arguement that his trust rating is unjust

LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on December 15, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
Okay, so let's say for arguments sake that he is a "troll", can you link him being a troll to it being necessary to not be trusted? Or can you link him trolling to him trying to scam?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 15, 2014, 03:55:35 PM
...
LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.

"Winding people up" is exactly what needs to happen when said people are getting fleeced.
Looking at the date, I remember why you've left me that vindictive feedback:  I interfered with your pimping of your AM "investment," which continues to tank to this day :)

@Quickseller: Mabsark leaving me negative trust is well within the forum rules.  The problem is not Mabsark, but the rules.  Attempting to grow a relevant trust system from a default trust seed is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

Edit re. "feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion":

The chart starts on June 11th, when I got the vote of no confidence from Mabsark for suggesting that AM prices would tank:

http://s7.postimg.org/s7orsyy5n/Capture.jpg




Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 16, 2014, 06:42:38 AM
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Wardrick on December 16, 2014, 07:05:07 AM
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?

Well since it was unwarranted in the first place to retaliate with negative feedback I think it's fair to change it to a neutral rating or remove it. Just because someone else abuses the trust system doesn't mean you should too, that's one of the points of being on default trust and having a higher feedback weight, to not misuse it and use it to point out scams and scammers. If you want to keep your default trust position I suggest you remove it and rethink the ones you've left if they would hold up when a person makes a thread like this, whether it's proof or your train of thought that led up to your decision.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 16, 2014, 09:01:44 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Beastlymac on December 16, 2014, 01:07:09 PM
I feel that anyone that uses a position on default trust to belittle other people or uses the position in an attempt to boost their own sales or boost their feedback in the way i think canary is doing by putting people that are low rank in his circle of trust as it inflates his manufactured trust number in an attempt to make himself seem more trustworthy. I think that anyone that uses default trust for personal gain should be removed.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 16, 2014, 04:28:55 PM
-snip-

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

I wish you really keep your word theymos. The motive of CanaryInTheMine & Mabshark is crystal clear from multiple evidences that have been talked about in this thread. Here is just another evidence...

Someone preferred Bimain backed Hashnest and see how he is pushing him to AM hash through his sig...
you dont, its called calculated risk. and what i would do is actually invest in actual asic producing co like bitmain.

bitmain has their own cloud services called hashnest, which if you do more homework is only legit cloud site on the market i believe. everything else is a gamble in my observation.

You need to do more homework. I suggest looking at my sig for starters then reading Puppet's Cloudmining 101 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878387.0) thread.

The way CanaryInTheMine is farming his trust is already discussed. What more evidence can we ask for to remove these people from DefaultTrust ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on December 18, 2014, 07:56:09 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Beastlymac on December 18, 2014, 08:18:29 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

I think it shows that Canary should be at minimum moved down to level two of the trust tree so that his feedback left doesn't have as great an effect. As he uses it now for influencing how people on this forum are able to engage in business. I am sure if you look at the way he has used trust ratings you will see that he has used them in a manner that helps him profit and i think when money is part of the equation when deciding to trust certain people that it induces a form of bias that is obvious in the actions that canary has engaged in and i think that someone who uses that power to profit should be relinquished of the power. Much the same as the situation that i was in. I had a transaction that went wrong and the user and members of his family slandered me and blackmailed me and as a result of this i applied negative trust to his profile (neutral was not an option at the time) but he was able to get me removed (albeit through a web of lies that where later proved false reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768105.0) my understanding was that i was removed because i "abused" my position on theymos trust tree although at the time it was the only option i had left. So i feel that anyone uses the trust network for personal gain should not be allowed to continue.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: RiverBoatBTC on December 18, 2014, 05:58:27 PM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 06:40:46 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 06:43:14 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 06:51:34 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum
Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 07:01:32 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum
Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.
No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 07:14:06 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum
Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.
No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 
You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 07:24:21 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum
Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.
No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 
You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.
Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 11:23:12 AM
Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.



Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 
Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.
These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum
Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.
No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 
You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.
Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy
You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

Theymos has no interest in justice being served. He has interest in his bottom line being protected, IE some are allowed to abuse more than others. People like me who aren't part of the boys club get excommunicated for not following orders. Someone like VOD can get on the forum and throw around negative trust like candy for the flimsiest of reasons almost daily, but your right... that single "questionable" negative trust I left certainly is reason to remove years of work and negate everything I have given to this community.

First they claim the trust system is unmoderated, now suddenly theymos is messing with individual ratings and commanding people to be removed from trust at threat of their own removal. So I guess my simple question is.. Do you really feel the user I left negative feedback for has more to add to this community? If not then this policy only punishes the ACTUAL PEOPLE who build real trust here by making them subject to these inquisitions by trolls and sock puppets.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.
Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?

In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.

If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.

You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 21, 2014, 05:42:52 PM
Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.  I returned the favor, though have mixed feelings about it.

...
LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect.

Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up.

"Winding people up" is exactly what needs to happen when said people are getting fleeced.
Looking at the date, I remember why you've left me that vindictive feedback:  I interfered with your pimping of your AM "investment," which continues to tank to this day :)

@Quickseller: Mabsark leaving me negative trust is well within the forum rules.  The problem is not Mabsark, but the rules.  Attempting to grow a relevant trust system from a default trust seed is fundamentally, conceptually flawed.

Edit re. "feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion":

The chart starts on June 11th, when I got the vote of no confidence from Mabsark for suggesting that AM prices would tank:

http://s7.postimg.org/s7orsyy5n/Capture.jpg


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on December 21, 2014, 06:33:09 PM
So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?

You didn't ask nicely, you started spreading lies about the reasons I left that feedback after me specifically telling you that that wasn't the reason and telling you the actual reason. And given the shit going on with your account at the moment and the scam accusations against you, I see no reason to remove that feedback.

Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: NotLambchop on December 21, 2014, 07:14:13 PM
...
Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.

Ah, you were removed from default trust then?  Will neg rep you back, my apologies.

http://s3.postimg.org/cvn23w4df/Capture.jpg

Nice job, whoever's responsible.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: malaimult on December 22, 2014, 03:45:42 AM
...
Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.

Ah, you were removed from default trust then?  Will neg rep you back, my apologies.

-snip-

Nice job, whoever's responsible.
From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: peligro on December 24, 2014, 11:19:06 AM
...
Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.

No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.

Ah, you were removed from default trust then?  Will neg rep you back, my apologies.

-snip-

Nice job, whoever's responsible.
From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.

It is not a good start. CanaryInTheMine had previously indicated that he endorses Mabsark's actions. Removing him when faced with the threat of getting his Level 1 status taken away is a bad sign.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 25, 2014, 04:55:52 PM
-snip-
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

Thank you theymos for keeping your word...

-snip-
From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.

I hope, in future, u'll be vigilant like this. Merry Christmas :)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on December 25, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?

In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.

If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.

You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on

No, that is not an accurate representation of the situation. Armis was harassing me, not pointing out anything "unfair". I was selling a gift card for face value, he decided that getting what I paid for for my gift card was unfair. I made it clear he was unwelcome and he continued to make posts including insults and other harassment. If he was just "calling me out" on something, why stick around to make insults?

I then reported his posts but the reports were ignored. At this point I left him a negative rating with the assumption that uninterested 3rd parties would not be forcing their involvement in the situation, so that we could BOTH be restored to our former states. The rating was left for his harassment, and that is exactly what the rating stated. I guess I should take the strategy of everyone else here and just lie about it, and say I think he is a scammer, and then it would magically be ok. After I left a rating for him he proceed to make slanderous posts on 5 more of my threads, demonstrating to me very clearly that his intent from his first post was harassment. At no point did Armis ever take responsibility for his participation in this conflict or even try to deescalate. Of course the staff are not interested in restorative justice, they are only interested in making sure the "default trust" maintains its "integrity" (HA!) so they can maintain their dominant influence over all traders on this forum and make sure their paychecks keep flowing.

 I do not leave negative trust flippantly, I have only left a handful of negatives over 3 years of trading. Other users on the default trust hand negative ratings out like candy for even the weakest of suspicious, and use "Scam busting" as a convenient cover for burning down a few personal enemies in the process and letting them get lost in the fray. Of course my single alleged misuse of a trust rating is unforgivable and negates my credibility. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on January 05, 2015, 06:41:36 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on January 05, 2015, 07:40:10 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

BTW - I notice that you aren't giving me crap about how I posted negative trust on PBmining's profile. Why is that?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on January 05, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies, though it really does not mean that all these companies will be able to able to survive in these cut throat competition of cloud mining.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on January 05, 2015, 09:16:15 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies.
You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all.

My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added.

Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on January 05, 2015, 11:04:57 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story.

How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on January 07, 2015, 07:54:02 PM
I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: DiamondCardz on January 07, 2015, 09:01:11 PM
It's been stated before, CanaryInTheMine has a ridiculously sized trust list that is not at all used for its purpose.

At the end of the day, people on Level 1 are supposed to choose people for Level 2 based on who they think will give good and accurate trust ratings. They're not supposed to add every single damn person they've traded with to Level 2! (He may not have added ALL of the people he has traded with, admittedly, but still...)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 08, 2015, 06:23:33 AM
I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.

   ~~MZ~~


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on January 08, 2015, 08:35:37 AM
I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.

   ~~MZ~~
I disagree. He can claim that he learned his lesson and changed his mind, but he was clearly attempting to intimidate me into silence about his abusive behavior. Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users, and it will not be the last. If VOD has not demonstrated he does not deserve the authority he holds by his actions, I don't know what does. I can't think of anyone else on this forum that would be tolerated if they acted like this, certainly not among the general public. He keeps saying he has "corrected" his behavior by trying to resolve the situation amicably AFTER he attacks people by abusing the default trust, but then he goes and does it again, and again, and again. VOD is a detriment to this community, regardless of how many "scammers" he has "stopped".


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 08, 2015, 08:49:06 AM
I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.
Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users

I have only seen 2 reports so far. Can you please give link(s) to thread/proof of any such thing he did?

   ~~MZ~~


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on January 08, 2015, 09:22:44 AM
I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.
Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users

I have only seen 2 reports so far. Can you please give link(s) to thread/proof of any such thing he did?

   ~~MZ~~



iCEBREAKER
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916867.0;all

takagari
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913889.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915549.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914551.0

EyesWideOpen
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878629.0;all

AndrewWilliams
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=329358.0;all

evershawn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702774.0;all

jayc89
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517340.0;all

This is just the more reputable claims on the first page searching for "vod" within meta. There are many others with varying levels of validity. He has clearly shown a pattern of such behavior.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on January 08, 2015, 02:22:15 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies.
You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all.

My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added.

Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.

You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U.

MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story.

How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in?

Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: MrTeal on January 08, 2015, 03:07:41 PM
MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies.
You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all.

My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added.

Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.

You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U.

MrTeal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story.

How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in?

Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.
You're free to your opinion that I'm now an Asicminer shill and that's a conflict of interest, though it's wrong. I'm not even sure how you somehow backed off me being an AMHash shill to now being an Asic Miner shill; it seems like it'd be a pretty inconsequential difference. I assume it's because I wish I'd gotten in on the IPO at 0.1 when it jumped to 4BTC/share 8 months later, but that's a similar logic jump to saying I'm a shill for the lottery company for wishing I'd picked the right PowerBall numbers even though I don't buy lottery tickets. Your opinion though, as you say.

As for leaving negative feedback for TeraBox, I cannot prove they are a ponzi, that is true. They display all the classic signs of a Ponzi though, in the same way that PBmining did. I couldn't prove PBmining was a Ponzi either (a fact you and all your Ponzi sympathizers seemed to love stating before PBmining blew up), but that didn't change the fact it was one. Is there a chance that TeraBox isn't a Ponzi? Probably. They could be a legitimate cloud mining company masquerading as a Ponzi. As I've said before, I would have no problem removing the feedback is TeraBox contacted me or provided any shred of evidence that they aren't a scam. Until then, much like Tomatocage tagging likely loan scammers, I will use my discretion to tag a company this is almost certainly going to default on their contracts. Since my leaving feedback for them isn't a conflict of interest as I have no stake in any cloud mining, my lack of right to be associated with default trust is simply your misguided opinion. I don't do it for you though, I do it for guys like this.

I am glad that i came here 1st, i was going to join Terabox, i will buy own miner other than cloud mining now, i have lost with others to scared to take them chances

Now a question for you, do you have any shares in Terabox, have you taken one of their free vouchers, and/or have you advertised a referral link to them or received any referral hashing power?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Keyser Soze on January 08, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.
Where do you come up with these lists? For example...

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Mabsark on January 08, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
Where do you come up with these lists? For example...

Basically, because I've got an AMHash sig and criticised a cloud mining ponzi he invested in, everybody else who criticised the ponzis became a sockpuppet for AM - those Chinese scammers led by Havelock/Friedcat that are running the real ponzi.

In other words, he's stark raving bonkers.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on January 08, 2015, 09:15:29 PM
Where do you come up with these lists? For example...

Basically, because I've got an AMHash sig and criticised a cloud mining ponzi he invested in, everybody else who criticised the ponzis became a sockpuppet for AM - those Chinese scammers led by Havelock/Friedcat that are running the real ponzi.

In other words, he's stark raving bonkers.

Below is a conversation between you and your best friend, which states more about u... ;)

Does lowest up-front cost and no maintenance fees sound to good to be true?
Does the cloud mining service try to hide their maintenance and trade fees until you've already bought a contract?
Does it refuse to provide proof that they even have any miners?
Are you concerned that the cloud mining service is actually a ponzi?

Well, now you can get cloud mining direct from ASICMiner, one of the earliest manufacturers of Bitcoin ASICs. There's no question about these guys actually having miners and they provide all the information you need to make an informed decision.

Cost: 1.2 mBTC per Gh/s
Maintenance fees: $0.00163 per Gh/s per day
Trading fees: 0.4% when selling

Official Forum Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833704.0)
Purchase from Havelock (https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=AMHASH3)


Mabsark wants you to buy this, because he is getting desperate about his Asicminer shares. But the offer is soo tempting that by his own words:

I don't own any AMHash shares.  :D

That said, I will agree that Amhash is far preferable over all the mining ponzi's like cloudmining.website, cloudminr.io, gaw, etc. Its arguably the least-worst cloud mining offer on the market. I still wouldnt chose it over coins in a cold wallet.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on January 26, 2015, 01:26:43 AM
Canaryinthemine YET AGAIN has another abusive user on his trust list, allowing them to use the default trust as a weapon to silence their opposition.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.0

REMOVE NUBBINS FROM YOUR DEFAULT TRUST LIST. If this isn't default trust abuse, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on February 09, 2015, 12:58:58 AM
Canaryinthemine YET AGAIN has another abusive user on his trust list, allowing them to use the default trust as a weapon to silence their opposition.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.0

REMOVE NUBBINS FROM YOUR DEFAULT TRUST LIST. If this isn't default trust abuse, I don't know what is.

Some are more equal than others. Nubbins has removed his abusive rating temporarily to preserve his position on the default trust. Shockingly after he has demonstrated he is again willing to abuse the default trust to punish people for critical words spoken out against him to attempt to intimidate people into silence, Canaryinthemine as well as staff are COMPLETELY SILENT on the issue. Why is is that the abuses of some members are condoned while other members are removed immediately with the cooperation of staff? I wonder.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on February 10, 2015, 09:44:35 AM
Yet another default trust abuser on Canaryinthemine's trust list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951134.0


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: arallmuus on February 10, 2015, 09:51:26 AM
Yet another default trust abuser on Canaryinthemine's trust list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951134.0

it pretty much isnt Canaryinthemine sole fault
he just needs to put in some effort to clear off his trust list which i believe he put them in their trust list from his previous group buy


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on February 10, 2015, 01:49:29 PM
Yet another default trust abuser on Canaryinthemine's trust list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951134.0

it pretty much isnt Canaryinthemine sole fault
he just needs to put in some effort to clear off his trust list which i believe he put them in their trust list from his previous group buy


Yet he is refusing to do this. Nubbins is on his trust list and he has left me negative trust in an attempt to intimidate myself and others into not speaking out against his abusive behavior. He changed it to a neutral, but once Canaryinthemine said he was ignoring the thread he replaced it yet again with another similar negative rating demonstrating clearly he has no respect for the position on the default trust and will abuse it to serve his personal interests. Yet again, Canaryinthemine has no response to this. He is going beyond negligence and is now actively allowing multiple default trust abusers to stay on his trust list. This has been a regular pattern of behavior for Canaryinthemine.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: smoothie on February 11, 2015, 06:30:16 AM
I must say at least the good part of people going ape shit and having a meltdown on this forum because of their own action is that it can be funny/entertaining.



Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on February 11, 2015, 10:40:12 PM
I must say at least the good part of people going ape shit and having a meltdown on this forum because of their own action is that it can be funny/entertaining.



At least you can admit your constant harassment of users is not about "scambusting" but is about your own entertainment and gratification.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: smoothie on February 15, 2015, 02:51:27 AM
I must say at least the good part of people going ape shit and having a meltdown on this forum because of their own action is that it can be funny/entertaining.



At least you can admit your constant harassment of users is not about "scambusting" but is about your own entertainment and gratification.

Lol nice try buddy. Don't read between the lines too much.

If I see someone being dishonest I will call them out. If it ends up being entertaining that is just a byproduct.

it is funny to me because you can't seem to see how ridiculous you have been in the past few months since you were removed from the default trust list.

If people want to make fools of themselves that ain't no one's fault but their own.

Don't make it my problem they are humiliated by own actions. Laughing ain't wrong.  :P

FYI I have not harassed anyone here. If so I think I would have been permabanned long ago.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on March 07, 2015, 12:00:39 AM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BitcoinFr34k on March 07, 2015, 01:49:16 AM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?
Well for starters, it is 100% certain that FC should be removed from CITM's list. Period.

I would say that CITM was effectively endorsing FC and ASICminer via his group buys so he should at least partially be held accountable for what happened, he probably shouldn't have to repay ~$1 million+ in stolen property but this should be a very black mark on his reputation.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: ScryptAsic on March 07, 2015, 05:35:16 AM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?
Well for starters, it is 100% certain that FC should be removed from CITM's list. Period.

I would say that CITM was effectively endorsing FC and ASICminer via his group buys so he should at least partially be held accountable for what happened, he probably shouldn't have to repay ~$1 million+ in stolen property but this should be a very black mark on his reputation.

I agree on the removal of FriedCat from anyone's lists until whatever is going on gets cleared up. I am lost on how he is to blame for that company being scammers though? He can not help that they did any of this.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BitcoinFr34k on March 07, 2015, 05:46:12 AM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?
Well for starters, it is 100% certain that FC should be removed from CITM's list. Period.

I would say that CITM was effectively endorsing FC and ASICminer via his group buys so he should at least partially be held accountable for what happened, he probably shouldn't have to repay ~$1 million+ in stolen property but this should be a very black mark on his reputation.

I agree on the removal of FriedCat from anyone's lists until whatever is going on gets cleared up. I am lost on how he is to blame for that company being scammers though? He can not help that they did any of this.
Many members on Canary's trust list had given FC positive trust. Canary also was effectively endorsing FC when he was selling his miners and effectively said that he was going to send first for products being purchased with his customers money.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on March 07, 2015, 10:41:34 AM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?
Well for starters, it is 100% certain that FC should be removed from CITM's list. Period.

I would say that CITM was effectively endorsing FC and ASICminer via his group buys so he should at least partially be held accountable for what happened, he probably shouldn't have to repay ~$1 million+ in stolen property but this should be a very black mark on his reputation.

I agree on the removal of FriedCat from anyone's lists until whatever is going on gets cleared up. I am lost on how he is to blame for that company being scammers though? He can not help that they did any of this.
Many members on Canary's trust list had given FC positive trust. Canary also was effectively endorsing FC when he was selling his miners and effectively said that he was going to send first for products being purchased with his customers money.

It seems FC has been added under dserrano5's trust list now !!!


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Muhammed Zakir on March 07, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
FC is also in PsychoticBoy and KWH.

   -MZ


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: KWH on March 07, 2015, 05:53:36 PM
FC is also in PsychoticBoy and KWH.

   -MZ

Did you not see the ~ (strikethrough) before the name?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: erwin45hacked on March 07, 2015, 07:26:02 PM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?

the lost of FC or any malicious thing done by FC isnt the fault of CITM, CITM could remove him from his list , infact, CITM should do some task to sort out his trust list


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on March 07, 2015, 08:52:02 PM
Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: dogie on March 07, 2015, 09:00:03 PM
Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.

Is that done on quantity or collective power of those people?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: BadBear on March 07, 2015, 09:03:23 PM
Both, if by power you mean level in your trust list (higher in your trust list tree will be more effective at exclusions). Exclusions must also be > inclusions.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: SpanishSoldier on March 07, 2015, 10:01:11 PM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?

the lost of FC or any malicious thing done by FC isnt the fault of CITM, CITM could remove him from his list , infact, CITM should do some task to sort out his trust list


It has been months that CITM was requested to do so by many people on this forum. His inaction clearly shows he does not want to do that (Well, I understand the intention, but as I dont have direct proof, I wont talk about it). Now babysitting FriedCat and many other people who are supporting AM hash & HaveLock even after a million dollar scam, must be rectified. So, the first step is to demote CITM to trust level 2. He'll still have the power to make people Green/Red. But, he wont have the power to give the power to scammers to make other people Green/Red. I think, DefaultTrust need to have pure people. Not the ones whose trusted ones are involved in million dollar scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0).

Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.

Everyone relying on the Default set by the forum is inheriting CITM trust. Is that good ?


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: nubbins on March 08, 2015, 04:31:57 PM
pure people

 :o :o :o :o :o

What is wrong with all of you?

There are no pure people.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on March 11, 2015, 02:34:00 PM
I think it is interesting to see that CITM has so many people on his trust list that gave positive trust to FC that he still has 150 trust even with two negatives.

It is also interesting that everyone except two people are on CITM's trust list that gave FC positive trust (a few are on others trust as well)


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: TECSHARE on March 11, 2015, 02:41:05 PM
Now as FriedCat is missing with more than a million dollar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0), can we expect CanaryInTheMine to be removed from DefaultTrust ? FriedCat is still seating happily in Canary's trust list. Or this time also Canary will get away just by removing him from the trust list like it happened for Mabshark ?

the lost of FC or any malicious thing done by FC isnt the fault of CITM, CITM could remove him from his list , infact, CITM should do some task to sort out his trust list


It has been months that CITM was requested to do so by many people on this forum. His inaction clearly shows he does not want to do that (Well, I understand the intention, but as I dont have direct proof, I wont talk about it). Now babysitting FriedCat and many other people who are supporting AM hash & HaveLock even after a million dollar scam, must be rectified. So, the first step is to demote CITM to trust level 2. He'll still have the power to make people Green/Red. But, he wont have the power to give the power to scammers to make other people Green/Red. I think, DefaultTrust need to have pure people. Not the ones whose trusted ones are involved in million dollar scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0).

Funny thing is, CITM doesn't show up in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him being > the people who include him.

Everyone relying on the Default set by the forum is inheriting CITM trust. Is that good ?

It is amazing how Theymos, Badbear, etc are willing to allow thieves responsible for stealing over $1 million stay on the trust list, and users like Nubbins who think the default trust is his personal tool for extortion and retribution over and over https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.msg10702253#msg10702253 to stay on the default trust list while other users are removed for individual petty incidents with no actual accusations of scamming even. It is pretty clear that the default trust list exists to PROTECT scammers and to punish anyone who exposes them. There is no other reason for such obvious selective enforcement to be applied to it. Theymos and company hide under this veil of justness and "rule of law", but then when it comes time to apply those same standards to their personal pals, there is always silence at best or attacks on the person pointing it out.

Canaryinthemine needs to be removed from the default trust list, he has clearly demonstrated his desire to leave people on his trust list who are thieves and regularly abuse the system for personal gain. Its funny how Theymos will personally go around asking users to remove me from the default trust for a single misunderstanding over an incident, yet some one steals a million dollars and he suddenly has nothing to say! If there is no rule of law for those in charge, it is just a matter of time before no one respects any of the rules.

P.S. I find it extremely telling that Canaryinthemine found time to add the op of this thread to his excluded trust list, but magically can't find the time to do the same for some one responsible for the theft of over a million dollars. CITM thinks his position on the default trust is for his own personal benefit, not a tool for the community to use to see who deals honestly.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: MarbleBoss on March 19, 2015, 11:11:41 AM
this thread is becoming ridiculous.

it's fun though..... Amazed at the title change, remove CITM from deault trust..... madness.

What was madness three months ago is now a reality. Amazing how time changes everything...

I'm being really stupid I know, but can someone tell me where CITM is, because I can't find him  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

That's where he was, he's now been removed. I'll lock this thread in a few days or when it stops being useful. Any follow on issues can have their own thread.


Title: Re: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust
Post by: Quickseller on September 11, 2015, 04:25:25 AM
I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
Is this statement still accurate? If so then what is the definition of "long"