Bitcoin Forum

I absolutely do not trust dogie. No personal btc were risked, I simply do not trust him whatsoever.

I shared what I know, didn't throw in the towel at all.  My hope is to nudge fc out of his situation, hire a CEO and get rid of Dave and all other people who are not there to serve shareholders.
There was serious infighting between fc and Dave.  Fc is a young guy and people took advantage of him.  He is now the fall guy, a scapegoat.  
The company didn't adjust as it grew with getting good business managers.  Management didn't listen to good external business advise.

The board of directors FAILED the shareholders miserably.  The board should have acted properly in shareholders interests, but what do you expect from a board made up of investors who purchased the seat instead of really doing it's fiduciary duty to the shareholders?  Although a couple board members really tried.
This david guy would be the last person I would invest a penny with (this is my personal view only).  AM is bankrupt.  The question now is, will certain people steal the IP from you the shareholders, find an investor and produce the chip with hopes of making personal gains out of this situation.

How many people have you left negative trust for that you've never carried out actual deals with, but rather do not like the way they conduct themselves on this forum?

That is a huge trust list...mine is 13 total (counting default and old scammer tag). I think it would probably be wise for him to look through the list and trim it down.

That is a huge trust list...mine is 13 total (counting default and old scammer tag). I think it would probably be wise for him to look through the list and trim it down.

Gladly, theymos added a 'tidle' option to trust list and it is really useful.

Which CITM is now also abusing *sigh*

AirWolf
dogie
cxboyminer
Silverspoon
NotLambchop
SpanishSoldier

Actually, you should talk to him. He may not have seen your feedback as relevant and excluded you. In overall, I agree with you! He is misusing his power.

And... me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=87869). CITM has refused to respond as to why he has ~'ed me and does not respond to PMs. Its one thing to buff his own ratings, but he is now directly inhibiting the very reason for default trust's existence for his own personal gain.

I warned people about this when Theymos introduced this feature. I had the privilege of being the very first user to be paid retribution by Theymos personally for leaving a trust rating he didn't agree with and refusing to remove it. Trust exclusions (~) are a way for the highest ranking users in the trust system to have a back door quiet form of retribution to users that is more destructive than a negative trust rating.

 Not only does the individual user not trust the excluded user, but anyone who trusts that user will also exclude them from their trust by default, always siding with the highest ranking member. So in effect they are destroying already earned trust ratings just by excluding them, not leaving a single rating where they have to explain themselves. Since the exclusion cascades down the trust list, you could have 3 other people trusting you on the 2nd level default trust.  Then if Theymos, or Canaryinthemine, or one of the highest ranking trust profiles excludes you, anyone who trusts the excluded user and also the default trust would no longer see the excluded user as being trusted. It is just a force multiplier for abuse, and this is just one of the first few cases of it. This system allows for honest traders to have their hard earned reputations extorted by people participating in popularity contests, mobs, account farming, and just plain old nepotism.

Canaryinthemine is clearly negligent in maintaining his trust list at the very best if not purposely exploiting it for personal gain and to protect his buddies.

It ia really helpful. I could exclude CanaryInTheMine and other, who are trusted by persons I trust, who misuses trust system.


He isn't ready to invest some time on pruning his trust list though it is mist for him if he wants to be in DefaultTrust trust list.

It ia really helpful. I could exclude CanaryInTheMine and other, who are trusted by persons I trust, who misuses trust system.

I do not trust you because of your misconduct with several manufacturers, therefore I added a tilde in front of your name.  That's the reason, I choose not to trust you.

I do not trust you because of your misconduct with several manufacturers, therefore I added a tilde in front of your name.  That's the reason, I choose not to trust you.

I do not trust you because of your misconduct with several manufacturers, therefore I added a tilde in front of your name.  That's the reason, I choose not to trust you.

Basically his use of these boards is merely to further his  advertising sales (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982368.0).

Inducing flame wars and bump spam in popular threads is part of that game.

Not really seen any overt abuse by CITM of the system he seems to discuss issues with others and resolves them when there are problems.

Dogie has no real leg to stand on given his abuses of the trust system.

Basically his use of these boards is merely to further his  advertising sales (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982368.0). Inducing flame wars and bump spam in popular threads is part of that game.

Not really seen any overt abuse by CITM of the system he seems to discuss issues with others

and resolves them when there are problems.

Dogie has no real leg to stand on given his abuses of the trust system.

Which "several manufacturers", what "misconduct"? And that is not the method nor venue of how to "not to trust" people.

He invested a lot of time to create them and it is helpful for many(most) of them. He should earn a small amount from it dor his work. He could have earned much more if he did it for a company or similar. He has the knowledge too. When doing a thing, value isn't for the work but for the knowledge. For example, if you are repairing a hardware, you can see they remove something, they know somethings, they add some etc... Anybody can do such things but they can't remove/add/fix the right one without the *knowledge*.


Look carefully. You will see.


This might be right but he must keep an eye on trust feedback of people on his trust list.


Show me "abuses" of dogie! Thank you!

Edit:


As long as the person in your trust list isn't abusing the trust system, he is good to stay there.

Feel free to REVIEW Dogie's transgressions as you say I have to review CITM's. Let me know when you are done.

Feel free to explain to me why his SPAMMING threads in order to develop business is a good thing.

Let me know when you are done.

Feel free to REVIEW Dogie's concerted efforts to degrade certain companies in an effort to promote his own agenda. Let me know when you are done.

I do not have to do any more than ask you to do a more thorough review of Dogie's posts and efforts in these forums

including his own abuse of the trust system against those who have rightly pointed out

as CITM's has that he has lied about certain companies in the hardware threads.

That is fair reason to pull him from any trust system.

If we are basing on that criteria he is well within his right to do so.

Hmm interesting, I don't have any say in the matter, but I am curious. Why would you not just leave Dogie negative feedback if you didn't trust him, rather than excluding him from being trusted by others? Seems a little bit harsh. I don't know too much surrounding all of the parties involved with all of the hardware producing companies and the recent shenanigans, and I don't make judgements unless I'm involved or have a significant amount of information proving something, but just because you don't trust Dogie, is your reason strong enough that others shouldn't be able to make their own decisions and add Dogie to their trust lists?

Again I have not seen anything that couldn't be resolved with a discussion with CITM.

Dogie is being more than disingenuous here given there are plenty of people in these forums that would agree he is not to be trusted given his posts about certain companies.

I am seriously entertaining the idea of a negative rating given this is the sort of weak effort to bring people down

Hmm interesting, I don't have any say in the matter, but I am curious. Why would you not just leave Dogie negative feedback if you didn't trust him, rather than excluding him from being trusted by others? Seems a little bit harsh. I don't know too much surrounding all of the parties involved with all of the hardware producing companies and the recent shenanigans, and I don't make judgements unless I'm involved or have a significant amount of information proving something, but just because you don't trust Dogie, is your reason strong enough that others shouldn't be able to make their own decisions and add Dogie to their trust lists?

Anyone can add him to their trust list if they wish.

Which "several manufacturers", what "misconduct"?

...  My actions and values have not changed in the last month since Spondoolies decided to go on a crazy rampage ...

Every time I need to interact with you I get strong feeling of nausea.
I'm trying to disengage but you keep dragging me into your swamp.


I repeat -
Where did I call you a thief ?

Most of our 1st gen customers received their miners within a 30 days period of ordering them.
Some received it after 30-60 days.
Our entire 1st gen selling period was under 3 months.

I've spotted many more lies written in the last few pages, I gave an example of two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

in the last month since Spondoolies decided to go on a crazy rampage

By crazy rampage you mean stopped trying to reason with you because they saw that it was a helpless cause

LOL what? I categorically and irrefutably disprove your claims and you deny the posts' existence? Is this another conspiracy? Did Theymos plant pages of posts back in time?

Its the other way around. I conclusively and undeniably proved to ST that their accusations were false, and responded by ramming their head in the sand. That's not my problem.

A smile post I've made in reply got deleted.
I believe I know which dog complained to the mods.
I'm not expecting anything from him.
I do expect the mods to be more tolerant.

Guy

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Next, dogie "abusing" reporting to moderator function, sucking the life out of Hardware subsection.
Here are two recent examples:

Dogie is being more than disingenuous here given there are plenty of people in these forums that would agree he is not to be trusted given his posts about certain companies.

CanaryInTheMine (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18614) has previously come under fire (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0) for misusing his level 1 DefaultTrust position by adding users into his trust list in return for leaving him positive trust. This further increased Canary's own trust score and power, as well as the addition of many accounts added inappropriately to DefaultTrust. This included newbies, those abusing their level 2 trust and others running questionable operations. He has refused to chance his practises and is further now abusing that self given power at the detriment of the forums.


When you put some numbers on the trust network, its pretty shocking case of abuse and centralisation of influence.

There are currently 417 accounts in DefaultTrust lists, of which 211 (53%) are from Canary.
181 (100%) of people who left Canary 'trusted' trust are in DefaultTrust because Canary added them to it (+ some overlapers).


What is more, he has started abusing his inappropriately self appointed power. He has ~trusted several accounts, including me, aggressively in order to inappropriately shield his own interests. CITM is heavily involved with ASICMiner.

AirWolf (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=76575) - because he put a bounty on information regarding ASICMiner (to regain his investment)
Silverspoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263102) - because he was critical of ASICMiner
SpanishSoldier (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317107) - because he was critical of ASICMiner
NotLambchop (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263109) - because he was critical of ASICMiner (although he is a bit hash)

And... me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=87869). CITM has refused to respond as to why he has ~'ed me and does not respond to PMs. Its one thing to buff his own ratings, but he is now directly inhibiting the very reason for default trust's existence for his own personal gain. There are currently 10 phising accounts, scam accounts or PM spammers that I am the only trust rating for, which are now unmarked.


Canary should either be forced to alter his negative practises or face removal from DefaultTrust.

Given the large number of scams that various mining manufacturers have pulled off throughout bitcoin's history, I think it would probably be appropriate for none of the mining manufacturers to be anywhere near the default trust system.

Allowing the manufacturers to receive benefits from being on the default trust network makes them appear to be more trustworthy then they probably should be considered. Take friedcat for example, his close relationship with CITM has allowed him to maintain an impenetrateable trust rating that is maintained at +150 despite having 3 negatives from people in the default trust network. He received positive trust ratings from an artificially high number of his customers. As a result he was trusted enough to be able to steal over a million dollars from his customers.

If I were an outsider and I were considering to buy from Bitmain, SP, or even FC, then I could see that they all have positive trust score, and have their trust opinions trusted by default so I may elect to cease further due diligence on their operations prior to investing large amounts of money into their equipment.

All three of the above just so happen to be on CITM's trust network.

No answer. So we established dogie is a liar.

Which "several manufacturers", what "misconduct"?

An Israeli classic. The meaning is clear I believe, even if you don't understand Hebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-9ahtQuY1E&app=desktop

Almost spot-on, except in that case the kid knew well enough to walk away with his head hung low.

If only...

I absolutely do not trust dogie. No personal btc were risked, I simply do not trust him whatsoever.

Canary has now left me negative trust with the below message, yet he refuses to reveal why he distrusts me. Users in Level 1 or even Level 2 trust are absolutely accountable for their trust ratings, which Canary refuses to be.

If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

I think he accepted SaltySpitoon's suggestion/opinion. Now he removed you from his trust list and others who trust you can find your trust feedback in "Trusted feesback".

https://i.imgur.com/4iodeoq.jpg

I guess you didn't read my post earlier about the mirror.  Instead of looking at everyone else around here, you should start looking at yourself.  When you rub people the wrong way with your holier-than-thou attitude, it's going to have ramifications.

I. The Web of Trust is not, as the name would seem to imply, an oilfield in which trust plays the role of oil, and you deploy some apparatuses and other devices to extract the trust therewith.

Trust is not in the web, that or any other web. Trust is not in the wording, not on the paper, not in the symbols, or certificates, or seals. Trust is not in others and other things, but much like faith - for which it serves as a ready synonym - trust is within oneself.

The Web of Trust is merely the infrastructure upon which trust is built, by you, for your own use, within yourself. The same objective set of relations can result in drastically different trust in the eyes of drastically different third parties. The point of the WoT is not to make these judgements for you.

II. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem.

It allows the user - any user - to confidently identify the sources of information, both in the negative and in the positive. That is to say, if sources of information exist, the user may by the WoT find them, and safely assume that should no sources of information be thus found, no sources of information in fact exist. It further allows the user to judge the quality, reliability and precision of said sources, and this independent both of the direct source and of the counterparty he's examining.

III. How to use it. Let's understand what all this means with a simple example. Consider the village of Wotania, wherein there exist exactly 100 agents, all participating in the Wotania WoT, and wherein strong currency is used for all transactions. Suppose Joe wants to buy a used car from Moe. While the currency he'd be paying Moe in is strong, the car he's buying is anything but, and so Joe would like to evaluate Moe before paying him. What's he to do ?

First off, he should evaluate Moe's relevancy. Obviously since there are 100 agents in total, the highest score any one agent could achieve in the WoT would be 990. This would reflect the situation where one particular citizen was considered as perfectly known by all other citizens. Thus if Moe has accumulated a score of 33, this clearly shows that at least 4 of the agents know him, which roughly means one in 25. If Joe knows 80 agents personally, but none of the agents he knows rated Moe, this makes Moe suspect on the first pass.

Sure, it's possible that Moe is only known to the minority subgroup of 20 agents doing things with cars, and within that subgroup he's quite well known, whereas Joe is strictly a part of the Wotania web industry, and they walk everywhere. However, this is something that Joe can evaluate by himself, without having any need for Moe, and without needing to ask him anything. For instance, if the island has a total of 3 car manufacturers, and all of them are in Joe's 80, Moe's position suddenly became untenable. Sure, it's possible that used car salesmen are completely separated from car manufacturers in the manner car people are separated from web people. But it seems less likely (and the likeliness of it is, again, fully within Joe's estimative hands).

Leaving that aside, if the average rating in Joe's WoT is 3.14, whereas Moe has received his 33 trust from exactly 4 people, averaging thus 8.25, there's suddenly exposed a very strange divergence between the two groups. Sure, it is legitimately possible for Moe's subgroup to be much more tightly knit, and thus his friends much more familiar with him than is the case in Joe's group. This happens, but not without other consequences, which again add valuable information into the credibility equation.

Or suppose instead that Moe's rating of 33 was provided by 10 people, yet still none of them are in Joe's reach. Somehow it is possible that out of 10 different people, 10% of the population of Wotania, nobody had any dealings with the 80 people Joe knows. They live on the same island, they go about their daily business, yet no one's ever met. Possible, especially if one lives in the US, but also improbable, and in this improbability, informative. Because this is the point of the WoT : its factual information reduces to a pile of factually correct statements, which all work as probabilities, and it's trivial to calculate the likeliness of a fact that depends on a number of other facts with known likelinesses : you just need multiply. 0.2 here, 0.5 there, 0.66 and another 0.15 suddenly you're at 0.8% which may well be under your risk tolerance threshold.

But let's say that out of Moe's 10 raters, 3 are in Joe's WoT. One supplied 3 points, the others one point each. Joe directs his questions as to Moe to each of them :


To which the three are held to answer (and the treatment for non-answering is again an informative variable, whose treatment rests with Joe) in the canonical form :


or


At this point, Joe knows, but quite exactly, what the story with Moe is : he's a small time car thief, and he's trying to make ends meet by selling whatever car parts he can get his hands on. Simple, really.

Alternatively, of course, he could be a very reputable used cars salesman. 0.8%, or as the clueless say, “it’s impossible to call it one way or the other”.

The important parts here are the easiest to overlook :

i. All this was established with no input required from Moe. Sure, if you want to get fancy you could easily ask a few choice questions just to see how the guy answers. But at its core, simplest, most barebone functionality, the WoT does not require you to talk to your subject of interest, at all.

ii. The process works universally : If it worked you know it worked, and of what quality its results are. If it failed you know it failed, and why and how come. It has, in other words, exactly the opposite properties to those decried by Naggum in his Lisp advocacy misadventures piece.

iii. Especially considering the alternatives, this is mindbogglingly cheap. In fact, I am ready to argue that the savings this model brings are, both in aggregate and on a percent basis, more significant than the savings Bitcoin brings in payments, or provably-fair in gambling.

So why isn't it used more often ? Because people are stupid.

To further drive home the point that every single goddamn one of you who is not present in the OTC Web of Trust is doing this entire trust thing perfectly wrong, I'll paraphrase from the Romanian whom everyone loves to hate (http://trilema.com/2014/what-the-wot-is-for-how-it-works-and-how-to-use-it/).

Speaking of the Web of Trust.
Were almost at the one Year anniversary of Mirceas Perma Ban, since she will never apologize maybe it's about time for an unban lol.
That said I think a WOT system would be an interesting trial over default trust, but just my 2 cents, although we did have a long debate on how to get the damn thing to work already, remembers Theymos meta thread with the major change being neutral trust.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52741;sa=showPosts

Wasn't permabanned. 45 days.

Canary, I like you, man. You're OG and you've always been cool with me (well, my main account anyway). But taking a look at your Trust list raises some eyebrows. Leaving a positive rating for someone you've traded with is fine -- I do it myself sometimes. However, it appears that you're actually adding these people to your Trust list, which is completely separate than your Trust ratings. I'm not sure if were aware of that dichotomy, as the Trust system itself is fairly confusing, and I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of the difference until several months after the Trust system went live.

Here's one branch of your Trust list that might need a 2nd look:

CanaryInTheMine -> Trynmpo -> PlusLegit

The latter two have been decisively outed as scammers:

Trynmpo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=925125.0
PlusLegit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576101.0 (as well as a bevy of other scam accusation threads)

IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust. I usually ask myself, "Could I confidently send 500 BTC to this user and trust that they'd send it back without hesitation?" If the answer to that is, "yes," then they're a candidate for my own Trust list (Depth 1 I guess).

Regards,
TC

Canary ... IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust.

CITM's list is silly and has been pointed out a bunch of times. I agree he should probably remove about 90% of those guys and start fresh.

I plan to expand default trust list

Neither one is on my list... am I looking at the wrong thing here??

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...). will post in Meta later.

Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I still don't know how to figure out who is on whose Trust list.

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

Thank you. I totally missed that link :)

Edit: It just comes up as a blank white page for me.

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

Your high depth causes the page to time out. You'll have to temporarily reduce that.

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...)

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

Do your own RESEARCH on Dogie's record. There is ample evidence. I am guessing you have not done much reading in the hardware threads.

You seem to be Trolling here. I am done responding to your questions until you read to some depth into Dogie otherwise there is no much point in having a discussion. Do your homework. I have read plenty of the complaints against Dogie and CITM. If I were to put trust in either it be hands down CITM based on my own research. Do your own research and catch up with the reality of the situation.

+2

It's evident people like Dogie are abusing the system.

Perhaps the only way to have people realize this is to show our distrust with Dogie whenever possible using the Trust meter.

There is something seriously wrong with either the forums, where one individual can defame people without proof.

Laws in the U.K can prevent this. Make your complaints accordingly. 

Also, not that it matters now that CanaryInTheMine has been removed from both level 1 and level 2 default trust (he is 100% out of the default trust network), but it appears that I also have been excluded from his trust list.

It also just so happens that I recently gave FC a negative trust rating saying that he is a scammer (which he is). I wonder if this is somehow related - I don't doubt that it is considering that I have never done any business with him not communicated with him in any way

Laws in the U.K can prevent this. Make your complaints accordingly. 

I also have been removed (because I was in the trust list of CanaryInTheMine) but it doesn't matter. I have left a negative feedback to a lot of suspicious users (revealed scammers). I don't know what is happened with FC, maybe can someone (through PM) explain me what is happen? Thanks.

I also have been removed (because I was in the trust list of CanaryInTheMine) but it doesn't matter. I have left a negative feedback to a lot of suspicious users (revealed scammers). I don't know what is happened with FC, maybe can someone (through PM) explain me what is happen? Thanks.

PM sent
That should help you out a bit with understanding the AM situation.
If you want more details though just PM me back

It'll get fixed soon, someone else will pick you up. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=383349 should be a neutral by the way.

I also have been removed (because I was in the trust list of CanaryInTheMine) but it doesn't matter. I have left a negative feedback to a lot of suspicious users (revealed scammers). I don't know what is happened with FC, maybe can someone (through PM) explain me what is happen? Thanks.

A similar thing happened to me (I was on Canary's list), but from what I can tell all the people I left negative trust for are still showing up in red anyway so it's not a big deal.

They will to you and anyone that trusts you.

I think they should for anyone who has default trust, but I could be mistaken; I don't have another account to check. Most of them have been neg'd by other people still in default trust like Vod, Tomatocage, Quickseller, etc.

You're no longer in the default trust so no, they won't appear read. I don't see as red the accounts only you left negative trust on.

I think they should for anyone who has default trust, but I could be mistaken; I don't have another account to check. Most of them have been neg'd by other people still in default trust like Vod, Tomatocage, Quickseller, etc.