Title: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: KWH on December 13, 2014, 05:21:53 AM In reference to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.20
After looking over and looking closely at the Trust details of less than half of your Trust, I found several interesting things. Now, I am not accusing you of anything but needing to prune your list. I find you business savvy and would trade with you. 1. You have quite a few Newbies and users with low post counts or time on the forum. 2. It looks like you have padded your Risked BTC amount. Both seller and buyer seem to share the same Risked amounts. May be the case, may not but it does look funny. 3. Several of those on your Trust list have less than 1-3 trades and I fail to see how this is just cause to be added to the Trust list. 4. Please prune your enormous list, it is only adding problems to the already flawed system, now and later. Doing business with a user should amass Positive, Neutral or Negative Trust but in any case a few successful trades is not cause to be added to the Trust list. Only going through less than half, I posted some below. I am not accusing these people of any wrong doing. I do believe most should not be on the Trust list. Edit: I have finished browsing through this lengthy list. All I can add is most of it needs to be truncated. So many Newbies, Jr. Members and Member accounts with one common denominator: They bought from CanaryInTheMine. Everyone, please look through the list for yourself and then decide. Also to add, If had an agenda, what is it? I don't endorse anyone in particular, I have no sig. campaigns and I used my real account. Name: (^_^) Posts: 21 Activity: 21 Position: Newbie Date Registered: November 17, 2012, 06:01:23 PM Last Active: April 03, 2014, 10:05:21 PM Name: redcomet Posts: 52 Activity: 52 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 31, 2011, 03:54:21 PM Last Active: November 03, 2014, 11:57:02 PM Trust summary for Philj This user's password was reset recently. Name: tlr Posts: 86 Activity: 86 Position: Member Date Registered: June 20, 2011, 04:24:52 AM Last Active: April 24, 2014, 07:21:54 PM Name: bitcoin-rigs.com Posts: 74 Activity: 74 Position: Member Date Registered: June 22, 2011, 01:07:28 PM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 03:44:14 PM Name: dtmcnamara Posts: 131 Activity: 131 Position: Full Member Date Registered: June 30, 2011, 01:39:06 AM Last Active: August 01, 2014, 12:42:19 PM (1 buy, 1 feedback) Name: notme Posts: 7502 Activity: 1134 Position: Legendary Date Registered: July 17, 2011, 12:51:23 PM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 11:22:32 PM (No idea why he is on Trust) Name: FCTaiChi Posts: 731 Activity: 308 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: July 18, 2011, 01:11:56 AM Last Active: May 09, 2014, 11:49:33 AM Name: mainichi Posts: 15 Activity: 15 Position: Newbie Date Registered: July 26, 2011, 03:38:37 PM Last Active: September 25, 2014, 05:54:10 AM Trust summary for Mushroomized This user's password was reset recently. Name: greeners Posts: 51 Activity: 51 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: July 26, 2011, 05:52:48 PM Last Active: December 06, 2014, 07:55:19 PM Name: dribbits Posts: 20 Activity: 20 Position: Newbie Date Registered: July 28, 2011, 01:00:11 PM Last Active: November 30, 2013, 01:38:27 PM (1 buy) Name: echris1 Posts: 124 Activity: 124 Position: Full Member Date Registered: July 30, 2011, 05:38:58 AM Last Active: February 03, 2014, 05:57:33 AM ( Have no clue why he's on the Trust list) Name: freshzive Posts: 447 Activity: 447 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: October 18, 2011, 01:29:52 AM Last Active: May 11, 2014, 02:09:14 PM (1 deal) Name: tbcoin Posts: 1126 Activity: 770 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: December 31, 2011, 08:37:58 AM Last Active: Today at 08:42:28 PM Name: ElideN Posts: 63 Activity: 63 Position: Member Date Registered: January 09, 2012, 07:02:53 PM Last Active: August 23, 2014, 01:14:51 PM Name: Christoban Posts: 9 Activity: 9 Position: Newbie Date Registered: January 24, 2012, 09:42:31 PM Last Active: September 01, 2014, 01:49:23 PM Name: Stale Posts: 46 Activity: 46 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: February 03, 2012, 11:32:43 AM Last Active: Today at 12:25:43 AM Name: cncguru Posts: 102 Activity: 102 Position: Member Date Registered: February 28, 2012, 10:13:00 PM Last Active: Today at 11:33:42 PM (No idea why) Name: Mendacium Posts: 172 Activity: 172 Position: Donator Date Registered: March 16, 2012, 09:22:09 PM Last Active: December 10, 2014, 12:31:18 PM (Look at the feedback he left, unbelievable he is on the Trust list) Name: mem Posts: 1461 Activity: 644 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: April 04, 2012, 03:34:20 AM Last Active: September 16, 2014, 07:05:38 AM (1 deal) Name: Namworld Posts: 681 Activity: 681 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: April 16, 2012, 09:29:50 PM Last Active: Today at 11:42:08 PM Name: lky_svn Posts: 45 Activity: 45 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 13, 2012, 08:00:33 AM Last Active: November 08, 2014, 09:37:56 AM Name: mr2dave Posts: 26 Activity: 26 Position: Newbie Date Registered: July 02, 2012, 05:57:11 AM Last Active: November 04, 2014, 03:31:10 PM (1 deal) Name: gektek Posts: 237 Activity: 237 Position: Full Member Date Registered: July 16, 2012, 04:57:40 PM Last Active: September 23, 2014, 01:57:08 AM Name: johnny5 Posts: 73 Activity: 73 Position: Member Date Registered: July 30, 2012, 01:05:53 AM Last Active: Today at 10:55:32 PM Name: dyingdreams Posts: 175 Activity: 175 Position: Full Member Date Registered: July 30, 2012, 02:33:43 AM Last Active: October 12, 2014, 11:37:10 AM (No idea) Name: Zillions Posts: 155 Activity: 155 Position: Full Member Date Registered: July 30, 2012, 07:27:10 AM Last Active: October 14, 2014, 03:26:22 AM Name: phrog Posts: 33 Activity: 33 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: August 06, 2012, 08:50:32 PM Last Active: December 06, 2014, 09:38:18 PM (2 deals) Name: Domrada Posts: 186 Activity: 186 Position: Full Member Date Registered: August 15, 2012, 11:22:52 AM Last Active: September 19, 2014, 05:43:49 PM (No idea) Name: Mapuo Posts: 630 Activity: 616 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: August 16, 2012, 02:03:57 PM Last Active: December 06, 2014, 07:27:39 AM (No idea) Name: jborkl Posts: 232 Activity: 232 Position: Full Member Date Registered: August 23, 2012, 09:22:34 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 05:31:52 PM (No idea how he is on the Trust list) Name: jmutch Posts: 226 Activity: 196 Position: Full Member Date Registered: August 30, 2012, 02:51:59 PM Last Active: April 13, 2014, 09:08:13 PM Name: MonocleMan Posts: 98 Activity: 98 Position: Member Date Registered: September 08, 2012, 09:14:44 AM Last Active: February 26, 2014, 12:22:16 PM Name: absinth Posts: 8 Activity: 8 Position: Newbie Date Registered: October 01, 2012, 10:45:23 PM Last Active: April 12, 2014, 08:33:21 PM Name: mitty Posts: 363 Activity: 363 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: November 10, 2012, 08:54:59 PM Last Active: September 10, 2014, 10:59:05 PM (1 deal) Name: soy Posts: 1176 Activity: 462 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: November 27, 2012, 10:29:47 AM Last Active: December 09, 2014, 11:56:30 AM (Rewarded for gifting a domain?) Name: super3 Posts: 986 Activity: 602 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: November 29, 2012, 11:45:21 PM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM (3 deals) Name: batt01 Posts: 255 Activity: 255 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: December 09, 2012, 03:48:45 PM Last Active: October 04, 2014, 04:26:57 PM (1 deal) Name: MJGrae Posts: 134 Activity: 134 Position: Full Member Date Registered: January 13, 2013, 08:28:49 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 05:53:21 PM Name: Timzim103 Posts: 67 Activity: 67 Position: Member Date Registered: February 07, 2013, 09:08:27 AM Last Active: August 25, 2014, 11:52:41 AM More suspects: Name: Rounder Posts: 24 Activity: 24 Position: Newbie Date Registered: February 16, 2013, 10:51:34 AM Last Active: September 16, 2013, 08:34:41 PM Name: TheXev Posts: 46 Activity: 46 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: March 02, 2013, 06:35:55 AM Last Active: April 11, 2014, 10:16:27 PM Name: Mooshire Posts: 1299 Activity: 308 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: March 10, 2013, 12:57:13 AM Last Active: August 14, 2014, 04:08:23 PM Name: hanti Posts: 108 Activity: 108 Position: Member Date Registered: March 14, 2013, 11:57:02 AM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 08:07:32 AM Name: ssinc Posts: 541 Activity: 294 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: March 22, 2013, 03:48:34 PM Last Active: December 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM Name: Kaega Posts: 157 Activity: 157 Position: Full Member Date Registered: March 25, 2013, 02:53:31 AM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 03:30:32 PM (1 trade) Name: True___Blue Posts: 355 Activity: 355 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: March 28, 2013, 08:49:18 PM Last Active: August 08, 2014, 05:13:38 PM Name: elchorizo Posts: 217 Activity: 182 Position: Full Member Date Registered: April 02, 2013, 01:26:26 PM Last Active: July 26, 2014, 05:04:25 PM Name: fewerlaws Posts: 8 Activity: 8 Position: Newbie Date Registered: April 03, 2013, 10:19:35 PM Last Active: January 03, 2014, 01:16:10 AM Name: Swimmer63 Posts: 1151 Activity: 630 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: April 08, 2013, 03:05:57 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 11:01:03 PM Name: locksmith9 Posts: 23 Activity: 23 Position: Newbie Date Registered: April 08, 2013, 11:56:13 PM Last Active: April 10, 2014, 08:21:12 PM Name: Krellan Posts: 105 Activity: 105 Position: Member Date Registered: April 09, 2013, 03:37:25 AM Last Active: December 10, 2014, 03:35:27 AM (1 trade) Name: Spendulus Posts: 2866 Activity: 630 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: April 10, 2013, 07:35:13 AM Last Active: Today at 02:03:49 PM (4 trades?) Name: MikeMike Posts: 1316 Activity: 518 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: April 16, 2013, 02:14:51 PM Last Active: Today at 02:12:46 PM Name: bluespaceant Posts: 6 Activity: 6 Position: Newbie Date Registered: April 17, 2013, 08:52:45 PM Last Active: December 09, 2014, 11:47:52 AM (2 deals) Name: Hiroaki Posts: 237 Activity: 237 Position: Full Member Date Registered: April 19, 2013, 03:26:45 PM Last Active: October 07, 2014, 07:04:48 PM (2 trades) Name: keeron Posts: 180 Activity: 180 Position: Full Member Date Registered: April 20, 2013, 01:01:16 AM Last Active: January 06, 2014, 02:09:17 AM (1 deal) Name: Bigdaddyaz Posts: 75 Activity: 75 Position: Member Date Registered: April 20, 2013, 05:06:34 PM Last Active: July 13, 2014, 06:29:37 PM Name: palmface Posts: 32 Activity: 32 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: April 22, 2013, 12:52:43 PM Last Active: November 29, 2014, 01:00:33 PM (1 deal) Name: SpaceCadet Posts: 164 Activity: 164 Position: Full Member Date Registered: April 23, 2013, 04:14:23 PM Last Active: Today at 01:27:08 PM Name: photon Posts: 25 Activity: 25 Position: Newbie Date Registered: April 23, 2013, 05:15:22 PM Last Active: April 10, 2014, 11:57:32 AM Name: jdot007 Posts: 73 Activity: 73 Position: Member Date Registered: April 29, 2013, 06:43:00 AM Last Active: December 05, 2014, 10:14:00 AM Name: mrtg Posts: 29 Activity: 29 Position: Newbie Date Registered: April 29, 2013, 07:11:55 AM Last Active: April 11, 2014, 08:08:26 PM Name: Plesk Posts: 78 Activity: 78 Position: Member Date Registered: May 09, 2013, 08:58:10 AM Last Active: November 18, 2014, 07:39:35 PM Name: aurel57 Posts: 667 Activity: 546 Position: Hero Member Date Registered: May 12, 2013, 07:01:01 AM Last Active: Today at 12:15:18 PM (PW Reset) Name: gambitv Posts: 260 Activity: 196 Position: Full Member Date Registered: May 12, 2013, 08:17:33 AM Last Active: November 14, 2014, 10:55:43 AM Name: boyohi Posts: 325 Activity: 168 Position: Full Member Date Registered: May 13, 2013, 11:52:32 PM Last Active: Today at 01:50:36 PM Name: LaserHorse Posts: 248 Activity: 140 Position: Full Member Date Registered: May 14, 2013, 02:11:01 AM Last Active: August 21, 2014, 02:55:15 AM Name: slashopt Posts: 12 Activity: 12 Position: Newbie Date Registered: May 20, 2013, 01:41:06 PM Last Active: October 01, 2013, 12:48:07 PM Name: drofdelm Posts: 39 Activity: 39 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 20, 2013, 03:35:00 PM Last Active: October 07, 2013, 11:49:15 AM Name: cdogster Posts: 47 Activity: 47 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 21, 2013, 12:14:07 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 05:08:17 PM Name: DBOD Posts: 36 Activity: 36 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 21, 2013, 01:03:38 PM Last Active: April 06, 2014, 03:18:22 AM Name: addzz Posts: 61 Activity: 61 Position: Member Date Registered: May 23, 2013, 10:17:36 AM Last Active: September 08, 2014, 06:48:24 PM (15 posts!) Name: DustMite Posts: 15 Activity: 15 Position: Newbie Date Registered: May 25, 2013, 12:15:51 AM Last Active: October 20, 2014, 11:29:18 PM Name: pixl8tr Posts: 310 Activity: 310 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: May 26, 2013, 11:12:12 AM Last Active: Today at 08:52:03 AM (1 buy) Name: namoom Posts: 17 Activity: 17 Position: Newbie Date Registered: May 27, 2013, 08:23:57 PM Last Active: May 14, 2014, 11:50:38 PM (1 trade) Name: blblr Posts: 13 Activity: 13 Position: Newbie Date Registered: May 28, 2013, 01:37:05 PM Last Active: February 17, 2014, 08:08:10 PM Name: arc45 Posts: 33 Activity: 33 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: May 29, 2013, 11:56:10 AM Last Active: February 25, 2014, 10:34:06 AM Name: smscotten Posts: 286 Activity: 140 Position: Full Member Date Registered: May 30, 2013, 02:39:00 PM Last Active: September 17, 2014, 05:17:54 PM Name: Cilantro Posts: 19 Activity: 19 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 01, 2013, 02:03:26 AM Last Active: December 09, 2014, 11:01:13 PM Name: chadtn Posts: 178 Activity: 178 Position: Full Member Date Registered: June 01, 2013, 02:43:33 AM Last Active: September 15, 2014, 10:46:13 AM Name: kinger1331 Posts: 11 Activity: 11 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 03, 2013, 12:46:44 AM Last Active: June 16, 2014, 04:00:45 PM (2 deals) Name: guytechie Posts: 253 Activity: 253 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: June 03, 2013, 05:22:18 PM Last Active: Today at 10:27:10 AM Name: rumlazy Posts: 199 Activity: 199 Position: Full Member Date Registered: June 04, 2013, 12:55:43 PM Last Active: Today at 06:55:04 AM Name: fractalbc Posts: 192 Activity: 192 Position: Full Member Date Registered: June 05, 2013, 08:43:55 PM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 02:22:02 PM Name: fforforest Posts: 56 Activity: 56 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: June 06, 2013, 05:33:15 PM Last Active: Today at 01:29:53 PM Name: KyrosKrane Posts: 269 Activity: 269 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: June 09, 2013, 12:23:41 AM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 02:06:35 AM Name: rj11248 Posts: 4 Activity: 4 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 11, 2013, 02:30:08 PM Last Active: October 15, 2014, 12:18:31 PM Name: jaslo Posts: 14 Activity: 14 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 14, 2013, 02:40:59 PM Last Active: October 09, 2014, 03:28:56 AM Name: BorisAlt Posts: 310 Activity: 280 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: June 16, 2013, 09:31:20 AM Last Active: August 24, 2014, 04:57:03 PM Name: ASICSAUCE Posts: 4 Activity: 4 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 16, 2013, 09:27:05 PM Last Active: December 10, 2014, 01:34:34 AM Name: steelcave Posts: 11 Activity: 11 Position: Newbie Date Registered: June 24, 2013, 03:06:44 PM Last Active: September 29, 2014, 06:35:28 PM (1 deal) Name: Rotorgeek Posts: 44 Activity: 44 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: June 24, 2013, 09:18:08 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 01:55:44 AM Name: buyer99 Posts: 81 Activity: 81 Position: Member Date Registered: June 24, 2013, 11:47:06 PM Last Active: June 10, 2014, 08:12:20 PM (1 trade) Name: daddyhutch Posts: 59 Activity: 59 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: June 25, 2013, 06:00:38 PM Last Active: November 15, 2014, 12:04:13 PM Name: digeros Posts: 264 Activity: 238 Position: Full Member Date Registered: June 27, 2013, 07:00:02 PM Last Active: December 03, 2014, 03:46:35 AM (2 deals) Name: west17m Posts: 61 Activity: 61 Position: Member Date Registered: June 27, 2013, 11:16:51 PM Last Active: December 07, 2014, 03:50:44 PM (1 deal) Name: Trillium Posts: 744 Activity: 476 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: June 28, 2013, 11:38:52 AM Last Active: Today at 12:07:33 AM Name: ziggysisland Posts: 4 Activity: 4 Position: Newbie Date Registered: July 04, 2013, 10:19:40 PM Last Active: January 15, 2014, 08:43:16 PM Name: ryhan Posts: 23 Activity: 23 Position: Newbie Date Registered: July 12, 2013, 11:10:43 AM Last Active: September 21, 2013, 11:47:22 AM (3 trades) Name: zac2013 Posts: 33 Activity: 33 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: July 17, 2013, 09:43:52 AM Last Active: November 16, 2014, 12:55:37 AM (1 deal) Name: atomriot Posts: 55 Activity: 55 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: July 25, 2013, 10:43:22 AM Last Active: October 15, 2014, 05:15:36 PM Name: metal_jacke1 Posts: 196 Activity: 126 Position: Full Member Date Registered: August 02, 2013, 06:52:44 PM Last Active: September 08, 2014, 11:19:30 AM (2 deals) Name: Apheration Posts: 88 Activity: 88 Position: Member Date Registered: August 07, 2013, 07:10:42 PM Last Active: October 28, 2014, 03:37:41 PM Name: spacebob Posts: 13 Activity: 13 Position: Newbie Date Registered: August 12, 2013, 11:24:34 AM Last Active: August 08, 2014, 11:35:04 AM Name: 2byZi Posts: 2 Activity: 2 Position: Newbie Date Registered: August 13, 2013, 11:38:38 AM Last Active: September 27, 2013, 11:27:55 PM Name: BenTheRighteous Posts: 32 Activity: 32 Position: Jr. Member Date Registered: September 03, 2013, 07:53:21 PM Last Active: September 19, 2014, 04:09:37 PM (9 posts!) Name: gsr18 Posts: 9 Activity: 9 Position: Newbie Date Registered: September 13, 2013, 10:28:13 PM Last Active: October 16, 2014, 12:34:03 PM (3 posts and on the Trust list) Name: Paddy Posts: 3 Activity: 3 Position: Newbie Date Registered: September 23, 2013, 09:12:32 PM Last Active: April 12, 2014, 10:32:35 PM Name: Jennifer Smith Posts: 19 Activity: 19 Position: Newbie Date Registered: September 26, 2013, 01:45:02 AM Last Active: September 20, 2014, 12:33:55 AM Name: J_Dubbs Posts: 524 Activity: 238 Position: Full Member Date Registered: November 16, 2013, 09:02:10 PM Last Active: August 14, 2014, 08:26:38 AM (1 deal) Name: ldh37 Posts: 114 Activity: 114 Position: Member Date Registered: November 28, 2013, 03:36:35 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 01:51:02 PM Name: thomslik Posts: 10 Activity: 10 Position: Newbie Date Registered: December 01, 2013, 02:02:20 PM Last Active: April 09, 2014, 09:13:44 PM (2 deals) Name: argakiig Posts: 400 Activity: 364 Position: Sr. Member Date Registered: December 04, 2013, 06:41:48 AM Last Active: December 11, 2014, 10:42:52 PM (1 deal) Name: Ski72 Posts: 72 Activity: 72 Position: Member Date Registered: January 16, 2014, 01:48:04 PM Last Active: Today at 02:46:52 PM Name: Thai Posts: 22 Activity: 22 Position: Newbie Date Registered: February 21, 2014, 11:03:07 PM Last Active: December 12, 2014, 12:19:04 AM Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on December 13, 2014, 05:41:41 AM +1 on this.
Many of the people on his trust list should not be on the default trust network, which is giving them power that it is not approbate for them to have. One thing to add is that you (CanaryInTheMine) recently removed someone from your trust list because they made an off the cuff response to an off topic thread saying they might sell their account in the future. I would say that the majority of the accounts above are potential accounts that could be sold in the future, some with the possibility that their owner has no idea of the power they hold and are selling. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: lili song on December 13, 2014, 08:06:52 AM was this case like this one ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822764.0
I've ever ask about it ... I would say that the majority of the accounts above are potential accounts that could be sold in the future, some with the possibility that their owner has no idea of the power they hold and are selling. The power are too great and I can fell it 8) Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: SpanishSoldier on December 13, 2014, 08:41:09 AM Can someone please point me out the relationship between CanaryInTheMine & friedcat ? Are they some sort of business partner ? I found the following facts about them...
1. friedcat runs ASICminer and CanaryInTheMine leads group buys from it. 2. Anyone speaks against ASICminer or other companies run by friedcat gets thrown out of trust list of CanaryInTheMine or his descendants. 3. Rockminer, the ASICminer partner in AM hash project, is in the signature of CanaryInTheMine. 4. CanaryInTheMine is very supportive about most thing friedcat does... Wow. This is friedcat. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 13, 2014, 06:00:06 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...
the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: KWH on December 13, 2014, 06:16:48 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list. Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason. Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 06:24:43 PM It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust.
Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone. The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals. A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 13, 2014, 06:25:45 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list. Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason. Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales. if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: KWH on December 13, 2014, 06:29:04 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list. Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason. Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales. if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries. Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to. I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 13, 2014, 06:30:15 PM it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust. Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread. If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that. I haven't seen abuse in this case. What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.
It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust. Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone. The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals. A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: KWH on December 13, 2014, 06:31:36 PM it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust. Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread. If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that. I haven't seen abuse in this case. What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks. It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust. Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone. The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals. A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system. What scams have the many Newbies that only have feedback from your group buys stopped dead in their tracks? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: CanaryInTheMine on December 13, 2014, 06:35:09 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list. Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason. Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales. if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries. Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to. I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add. thank you for your feedback and opinion. i'll be more than happy to look into any actual abuses. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: KWH on December 13, 2014, 06:37:31 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list. Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason. Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales. if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries. Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to. I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add. thank you for your feedback and opinion. i'll be more than happy to look into any actual abuses. Oh, they have trades, with you. I have no agenda other than fairness. You are polluting the Trust system with your group buyers. You are also padding your Risked BTC. If they have no trades or deals, just how is it they appeared on your Trust? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 06:39:51 PM it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust. Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread. If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that. I haven't seen abuse in this case. What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks. The people who share the opinions all have their interests aligned as they are all promoting AM1 on havelock, likely are all shareholders of AM1 (many have admitting to being so). They are also promoting their message almost in unison making it appear they are being controlled by one or few people. It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust. Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone. The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals. A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system. He is also forcing the companies that he gave negative trust to prove they are not scamming, this deprives them of due process as due process requires that the aggressor provide evidence against the person they claim to have broken some rule. In other words it is up to Mabsark to give evidence that the companies are scamming or are trying to scam. I have also not seen very many people on your trust list (if any) stop scams in their tracks. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on December 13, 2014, 06:57:57 PM Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.
For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today Quote CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331) 2014-12-13 0.00000000 I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user! CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: redsn0w on December 13, 2014, 07:02:40 PM Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating. For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today Quote CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331) 2014-12-13 0.00000000 I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user! CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating. What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on December 13, 2014, 07:06:42 PM Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating. For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today Quote CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331) 2014-12-13 0.00000000 I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user! CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating. What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person. I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system. Did he add you after or before you left the feedback? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on December 13, 2014, 07:07:44 PM Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating. I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust. For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today Quote CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331) 2014-12-13 0.00000000 I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user! CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating. If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: redsn0w on December 13, 2014, 07:09:44 PM .... I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system. Did he add you after or before you left the feedback? It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal. ... I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust. If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam Are you serious ? All this story only for a trust feedback to a reputable user ? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 07:10:00 PM Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating. For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today Quote CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331) 2014-12-13 0.00000000 I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user! CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating. What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person. Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on December 13, 2014, 07:11:52 PM .... I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system. Did he add you after or before you left the feedback? It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal. The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating. This has nothing to do with you. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: John (John K.) on December 13, 2014, 07:14:15 PM .... I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system. Did he add you after or before you left the feedback? It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal. The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating. This has nothing to do with you. This. A flaw in the system would be that one in the DefaultTrust list could essentially increase his own trust by adding people that gave him trust outside of the list to his own trust list. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: redsn0w on December 13, 2014, 07:14:35 PM ..... The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased. Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer? It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him. I've left the feedback after not before ;). *and I also want to add : I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: malaimult on December 13, 2014, 07:17:53 PM ..... The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased. Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer? It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him. I've left the feedback after not before ;). *and I also want to add : I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist. The group buy issue is probably having to do with the fact that people who participated in his group buys have generally left him positive feedback (because they had a positive trading experience). Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on December 13, 2014, 07:18:47 PM ..... The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased. Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer? It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him. I've left the feedback after not before ;). *and I also want to add : I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist. As I said, this is not a problem on your end, and neither I am accusing that CanaryInTheMine deliberately tried to improve his rating. I was pointing out a possible mode of abuse of the trust system. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on December 13, 2014, 07:21:40 PM .... I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system. Did he add you after or before you left the feedback? It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal. The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating. This has nothing to do with you. This. A flaw in the system would be that one in the DefaultTrust list could essentially increase his own trust by adding people that gave him trust outside of the list to his own trust list. 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. -snip- Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on December 13, 2014, 07:31:23 PM From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work: 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. -snip- This isn't really applicable as many persons don't add people who are in Default Trust list to their trust list unless they're making a custom one with depth 0. ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on December 13, 2014, 07:37:10 PM From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work: 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. -snip- This isn't really applicable as many persons don't add people who are in Default Trust list to their trust list unless they're making a custom one with depth 0. ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: der_troll on December 13, 2014, 08:24:27 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. If I may ask, why was i removed from your list then? I did no scam, I don't run any trading here all I did is gave negative trust to someone I think deserves it. Then you removed me from your trust list and you give positive trust rating to that same person. Don't say it's because of my post in off topic thread as this was irrelevant comment. Thank you Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: TECSHARE on December 13, 2014, 10:14:26 PM I warned you all that TRUST MODERATION IS A FAILED POLICY that will result in this community being torn apart from the inside out.
See how fast you go from the one judging to the one being judged Canary? Enjoy your personal inquisition. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: malaimult on December 14, 2014, 02:57:49 AM it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust. Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread. If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that. I haven't seen abuse in this case. What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks. Looking at this statement again, and looking at the trust feedback you left for Mabsark, I see a big problem here. You are 100% correct that potential scammers will be stopped. However just because someone is a potential scammer does not mean they are actually scamming or actually trying to scam. What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling. I would also ask you what percentage of your trust feedback is not on anyone else's trust list that is on default trust? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%? I would ask the same about friedcat Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: erwin45hacked on December 14, 2014, 05:24:35 PM it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust. Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread. If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that. I haven't seen abuse in this case. What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks. Looking at this statement again, and looking at the trust feedback you left for Mabsark, I see a big problem here. You are 100% correct that potential scammers will be stopped. However just because someone is a potential scammer does not mean they are actually scamming or actually trying to scam. What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling. I would also ask you what percentage of your trust feedback is not on anyone else's trust list that is on default trust? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%? I would ask the same about friedcat this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" this is much much better than leaving a negative feedback that pissed people of well just my opinion tho Regards, Erwin Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Blazed on December 14, 2014, 06:01:24 PM I have to agree with the whole AM thing..all the investors are bashing anything not AM/AMHash. It seems like Canary adds a ridiculous amount of people to his trust network. I wonder what % of all depth 2 trusted people come from his list?
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on December 14, 2014, 06:20:24 PM I have to agree with the whole AM thing..all the investors are bashing anything not AM/AMHash. It seems like Canary adds a ridiculous amount of people to his trust network. I wonder what % of all depth 2 trusted people come from his list? 66% most of them are on default trust list because of him aloneTitle: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Mabsark on December 14, 2014, 07:04:58 PM What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling. I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers. Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!" Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback. this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: erwin45hacked on December 14, 2014, 09:07:13 PM What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling. I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers. Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!" Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback. this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research. too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so? not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know :) so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" speaking of puppet i like the way he do things :) really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk Regards, Erwin Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Mabsark on December 14, 2014, 11:10:48 PM too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so? not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know :) so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" speaking of puppet i like the way he do things :) really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk I've done some research. Other people with no connection to AM have done some research. We all came to our own conclusions that these are almost certainly scams. There are quite a few cloud mining services, the few I left negative feedback on are simply the worst of the worst. Since you like the way Puppet does things, you might like to hear what he had to say on the matter: 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. I've told all of these services that I'd remove the feedback if they provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. If they had any hashing power, they would quite easily be able to do that. This is not just an AM against the competition thing: I give my vote of confidence to Mabsark. 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. 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. That's 4 respected members of the community who agree and have no obvious affiliation with AM and I know Puppet and Raskul have stated that they don't have any. I think most people with a reasonable amount of experience with bitcoin mining would agree that the services Puppet listed as legit are legit, the ones he's listed as a ponzi are most likely a ponzi, and the ones in between are questionable to various degrees. It's better to warn people about these services before they get ripped off rather than waiting till afterwards then rubbing their noses in it. If the services are legitimate they can easily prove that. They refuse to do. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Tomatocage on December 14, 2014, 11:38:43 PM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: TECSHARE on December 15, 2014, 02:51:41 AM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating. If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Blazed on December 15, 2014, 03:10:46 AM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating. I think they are referring to him adding so many people into his trust list (giving them depth 2 default trust). Not so much his feedback left for trades and group buys. Personally I trust him, but he does add by far the most people into lvl 2 trust. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on December 15, 2014, 03:40:15 AM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating. If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?The irony. You ab/used the feedback system this way by leaving negative feedback in an attempt to get someone to remove theirs against you and leave you alone. It seems you don't mind abusing it so long as it's not done to you. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: funtotry on December 15, 2014, 04:44:24 AM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating. I think they are referring to him adding so many people into his trust list (giving them depth 2 default trust). Not so much his feedback left for trades and group buys. Personally I trust him, but he does add by far the most people into lvl 2 trust. I have previously thought he is trustworthy but no longer do so after what has been uncovered in the 3 threads about him that are currently active in meta. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: TECSHARE on December 15, 2014, 05:08:18 AM I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating. If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?The irony. You ab/used the feedback system this way by leaving negative feedback in an attempt to get someone to remove theirs against you and leave you alone. It seems you don't mind abusing it so long as it's not done to you. They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on December 15, 2014, 05:30:24 AM There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you did't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck read and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY. They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me. Yawn more irony and hypocrisy. I'm tired of your whining and responding to the same old tired bs. The biggest hypocrisy here is from you and you were fine abusing the system when it suited you but are now just inventing up conspiracy to suit your argument like every child who gets told off here for something that is their own wrongdoing. You abused the system to get your own way on your own terms. How did removing you from the trust protect the staff or their financial interests? It seems you were trying to protect yours by the abuse. http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dr-zoidbergs-butthurt-cream.jpg I suggest you use some of that and get over it. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: onewiseguy on December 24, 2014, 09:44:23 PM if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately. several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future... the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums. a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams. scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums, their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams. sent you a pm Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: dogie on December 25, 2014, 03:25:50 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: TECSHARE on December 25, 2014, 07:16:10 PM There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you did't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck read and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY. They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me. Yawn more irony and hypocrisy. I'm tired of your whining and responding to the same old tired bs. The biggest hypocrisy here is from you and you were fine abusing the system when it suited you but are now just inventing up conspiracy to suit your argument like every child who gets told off here for something that is their own wrongdoing. You abused the system to get your own way on your own terms. How did removing you from the trust protect the staff or their financial interests? It seems you were trying to protect yours by the abuse. A very professional response from the staff as usual. No one is forcing you to read my posts, you do an awful lot of crying about my posts for someone accusing me of being butthurt. I already explained how throwing me under a bus while allowing others to actually abuse the system heavily benefits staff. It draws attention away from the fact that this enforcement is for some users but not others and makes it appear as if you actually enforce these standards when enforcement is selective at best, all the while protecting your paychecks. You can make all the personal attacks against me you like, all it will do is demonstrate your lack of restraint and self control. You can call what I did an "abuse" all day, but I never tried to obfuscate what I did, and frankly I probably would have been better off lying to your faces and saying I thought Armis was a scammer, because that seems to be your only standard. I guess that is my fault for expecting a reasonable response from staff to a single complaint over 3 years while other users on the default trust have vast collections of complaints that go ignored by staff. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Argwai96 on December 25, 2014, 07:29:44 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review Probably another example as to why Canary should prune his trust list. There is no reason for someone to be on default trust list if they at least at one point have been an active trader and/or have called out a lot of scamsTitle: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: jeffersonairplane on December 30, 2014, 03:05:50 AM if nothing else changes then I think Canary should at least take the time to prune his trust list. I am sure he is a busy guy and with so many people under his trust list, he does not have the time to keep tabs on each and every one. There are definitely a good number of people under Canary's trust list who should not be deemed "trustworthy" anymore. Pruning the trust list of members gone bad is the least Canary can do for the community. I have no further comment on anything else that has taken place on this thread other than the fact that the points brought up about the trust system is /slightly/ flawed.
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: onewiseguy on December 30, 2014, 03:07:37 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review would be great if some one did something about this. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on January 01, 2015, 10:58:22 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review would be great if some one did something about this. The holiday period is over so there should be some solution now. CanaryInTheMine has a lot of complaints and I am surprised he is still on the depth 1. He has also shown earlier that in the Mabsark case that he is willing to remove others from his trust list if he feels that is bringing his place in the list in question. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: dogie on January 01, 2015, 12:12:00 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review would be great if some one did something about this. The holiday period is over so there should be some solution now. CanaryInTheMine has a lot of complaints and I am surprised he is still on the depth 1. He has also shown earlier that in the Mabsark case that he is willing to remove others from his trust list if he feels that is bringing his place in the list in question. Just for the record, I was just cross posting the threads because it seemed relavent to the discussion and hadn't been mentioned. I don't hold a position on that particular case (I haven't read it properly). Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: MadZ on January 02, 2015, 09:08:23 AM Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507).
46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break ::) Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on January 02, 2015, 09:22:30 AM Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507). 46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break ::) So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: MadZ on January 02, 2015, 09:31:16 AM Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507). 46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break ::) So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full) Quote philipma1957 dentldir CrazyGuy Unacceptable kano champbronc2 Cablez davecoin RicRock Delarock iluvpcs crashoveride54902 Stunna lazlopanaflex ssinc razorfishsl btceic Swimmer63 buysolar SilentSonicBoom TookDk jc328 Chris_Sabian DefaultTrust klintay stex2009 Beastlymac boldar de_ixie Stratobitz EvilPanda Blazedout419 btcxcg bronxnua DyslexicZombei tripppn xZork crocko mchu168 itsrealfast Albertdroid MoreBloodWine BITMAIN CoinGeneral dance191 RitzGrandCasino crowetic dyland pcfli Diddyu Zoomhash_michael RockDaddy SDRebel MunkeySpaz Xtra7973 He added them to his list. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on January 02, 2015, 09:54:41 AM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 02, 2015, 10:39:53 AM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue. ::) P.S. Sorry, he was added by DefaultTrust too. I think theymos/badbear can resolve this. :) But he would still be in trust depth 2. :-\ Quote CanaryInTheMine theymos Gavin Andresen jgarzik Luke-Jr Miner-TE eleuthria luv2drnkbr Digigami gmaxwell E zapeta bitpop SebastianJu ipxtreme Philj os2sam yxt knybe conv3rsion bitcoin-rigs.com Vod dtmcnamara John (John K.) notme Mushroomized greeners dribbits echris1 SaltySpitoon bitcoiner49er BadBear freshzive arklan glendall Pistachio tarrant_01 tbcoin ElideN friedcat TheJuice Bees Brothers Christoban Stale af_newbie eroxors camolist MrTeal cncguru Mendacium PsychoticBoy Dabs mem Namworld lky_svn 420 mr2dave DobZombie Adrian-x gektek johnny5 dyingdreams Zillions phrog Domrada Mapuo philipma1957 jborkl RicRock jmutch MonocleMan b!z CoinHoarder absinth mitty (^_^) soy super3 iluvpcs batt01 xstr8guy MJGrae mobile nubbins ThickAsThieves hephaist0s BitcoinValet Timzim103 Rounder Nemo1024 TheXev ibminer Mooshire Benny1985 mrbrt hanti ssinc Kaega finlof 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 Chris_Sabian xjack CommanderVenus daddyfatsax Plesk helipotte aurel57 gambitv boyohi LaserHorse joeventura xhomerx10 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 BrianDeery ziggysisland devthedev ryhan zac2013 atomriot metal_jacke1 Apheration johoe spacebob 2byZi terrapinflyer BenTheRighteous gsr18 Paddy Jennifer Smith BITMAIN J_Dubbs 00Smurf firejuan ldh37 thomslik argakiig Cheeseater ManeBjorn redsn0w Ski72 suchmoon Thai KaChingCoinDev sjc1490 FACTOM ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: MadZ on January 02, 2015, 10:43:41 AM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue. ::) ~~MZ~~ No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 02, 2015, 10:46:40 AM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue. ::) No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it. You missed my line just below that! ::) I get it! So now 2 people in the list but CanaryInTheMine has better history, he can still be in the list if he remove the users who shouldn't be in the list. ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 02, 2015, 10:53:15 AM Just removed philipma1957 from my list. I suggest everyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the list to remove him from your list, just add ~ before his name in your list: ~philipma1957 .
https://i.imgur.com/U6sn9Jz.png (https://imgur.com/U6sn9Jz.png) Actual trusted feedbacks: https://i.imgur.com/IbBxzJV.png (http://) ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on January 02, 2015, 01:11:17 PM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? he was added very recently. I noticed it last night. To be fair he probably added most/all these people prior to being trusted by default trust. The effect of his actions are very different because prior to him being on this list means that his list does not affect what most others see. It looks like he is a Spanish moderator so him being trusted by default trust will allow people in the Spanish section more benefit from the trust system Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on January 02, 2015, 01:37:26 PM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue. ::) ~~MZ~~ No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it. Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's? he was added very recently. I noticed it last night. To be fair he probably added most/all these people prior to being trusted by default trust. The effect of his actions are very different because prior to him being on this list means that his list does not affect what most others see. It looks like he is a Spanish moderator so him being trusted by default trust will allow people in the Spanish section more benefit from the trust system It must've been yesterday because I only noticed my feedback go up one today (because someone he trusts is now on the trusted list). And who's a Spanish mod? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: redsn0w on January 02, 2015, 01:38:47 PM ... Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's? I don't know how the trust system works (I mean the code) but maybe theymos added it , or am I wrong ? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on January 02, 2015, 01:53:42 PM At the least, the trust system should be changed so that all those on depth 1 can not improve their own trust rating as CanaryInTheMine did by trusting redsn0w.
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 02, 2015, 02:22:49 PM This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list? He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue. ::) No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it. Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's? Theymos/Badbear added him as he is trust depth 1 and also, he is trusted by Canary. But I don't know who added him first. And, I don't think he is a mod. @Quickseller : Any mistake from your side? Name changed? ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Quickseller on January 02, 2015, 02:25:16 PM Quote It must've been yesterday because I only noticed my feedback go up one today (because someone he trusts is now on the trusted list). And who's a Spanish mod? Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Muhammed Zakir on January 02, 2015, 02:25:36 PM At the least, the trust system should be changed so that all those on depth 1 can not improve their own trust rating as CanaryInTheMine did by trusting redsn0w. redsn0w is in Canary's trust list. I think changing trust system can't be done as there is no alternative system which can atleast match current one but IMHO the faults what you're pointing can only be corrected by making default trust depth to 1. ::) ~~MZ~~ Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: MadZ on January 04, 2015, 08:41:27 AM Has anything been done to address this issue? Should I make a separate topic since this one was originally about CanaryInTheMine?
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on January 04, 2015, 09:00:35 AM The philipma one? He seems to have removed at least a couple of people from his list, noticeably Beastlymac and RitzGrandCasino (the latter who's feedback was negatively and unfairly effecting another user).
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: needFREElunch on January 04, 2015, 09:07:52 AM Has anything been done to address this issue? Should I make a separate topic since this one was originally about CanaryInTheMine? A separate discussion should probably be opened. I somewhat doubt that anything will come of it though as he was recently added to the trust list of default trust so theymos probably knew who he had on his trust list before adding him. I might speculate that adding him could precede CanaryInTheMine being removed Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: peligro on January 04, 2015, 09:35:02 AM Back to CanaryInTheMine, gambitv is still on the list. Onewiseguy's posts indicates that gambitv abused his power and tried to extort, but that issue seems to have been ignored by the admins.
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Beastlymac on January 04, 2015, 10:53:31 AM The philipma one? He seems to have removed at least a couple of people from his list, noticeably Beastlymac and RitzGrandCasino (the latter who's feedback was negatively and unfairly effecting another user). I wasn't aware that he was added to depth 1. I wonder why i was removed, all feedback i have ever left has been justified. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: hilariousandco on January 04, 2015, 11:04:07 AM Who was added, philipma? He was added yesterday. Wern't you on the defaulttrust before but removed for some reason (think I read from you before this happened)? He may have trimmed his trust after being put on or maybe someone requested he removed you, but this is just speculation.
Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: Beastlymac on January 04, 2015, 11:16:01 AM Who was added, philipma? He was added yesterday. Wern't you on the defaulttrust before but removed for some reason (think I read from you before this happened)? He may have trimmed his trust after being put on or maybe someone requested he removed you, but this is just speculation. I was on theymos trust list before bbxx claimed the feedback that i left on his account was an act of "harassment" and "unjust" and he kept spamming the forum with lies (libelling me) until theymos removed me. I am under the impression that bbxx repeatedly spammed theymos until theymos couldn't be bothered with it anymore and just removed me. After i was removed bbxx admitted that his brother wasn't entitled to anything and that shows that he intentionally lied to have me removed. I think that he has probably done the same thing again but that is just speculation. I covered it all here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768105.0 I only had the time to write the whole dealing up after theymos removed me and i don't think that he has ever read through it. The issue was that my feedback was apparently based on me "lying" (according to bbxx) but all what i stated in my feedback that i left on his account was proven through evidence i had compiled. Title: Re: Questions for CanaryInTheMine Post by: TECSHARE on February 05, 2015, 03:46:18 PM Nubbins has yet again abused the default trust to settle his personal issues by replacing the negative feedback he removed (so he would not get removed). What excuse do you have for not removing him from your trust now Canary? It seems like some people get more chances than others around here, even when they demonstrate their willingness to intentionally abuse the system.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.msg10366822#msg10366822 |