hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,
This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda. On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters. Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right.  1, I am not liberal, 2 you are not centre-right. You are authoritarian, who disregards consensus of opposition to what you are doing, and tries (often successfully) to silence those who criticize you. Further, you are corrupt. 2, you do not care about anyone getting scammed. You do not prevent anyone from getting scammed, rather the opposite, as you have diluted the effect of negative trust so much that people have learned to ignore it. In the process, you have damaged the reputations of many people for arbitrary reasons, often without any kind of violation of even a clear guideline. Based on your corruption and history of extortion and scamming, you should be given an untrustworthy tag similar to the one that Matthew M Wright has. Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.
Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion. Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair. He is being intentionally dishonest. He has always used this strong language whenever he was excluded from DT multiple times. I suspect this somewhat has to do with why he kept receiving additional inclusions under the old system. There was never any basis for this kind of language. |
|
|
|
hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,
This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda. On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters. |
|
|
|
Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.
He was trying to convince others to agree with him.
All blacklisting would do is exclude someone from being DT1. He would have to completely overhaul the system to make it impossible for any DT1 member to include someone in their trust list, therefore making that person DT2. He can blacklist on both levels, no? He can, and should hardcode exclusions to anyone who has you on their trust list. The majority of people who have you on their trust list are scammers, and/or what amounts to your puppet incapable of thinking for themselves. In all cases, they are showing extreme bad judgment |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.
He was trying to convince others to agree with him.
|
|
|
|
This is a terrible, terrible idea.
Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.
For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present. Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned. |
|
|
|
Some super weird shit is happening with theymos.
He asked me to remove lauda from my trust list, and not just that, told me to distrust her. He says BSV is scam but they need to break a contract to to be able identified as a scam.
I replied him "If it is a scam, it doesn't need a broken contract. Please start to make sense dude. I am taking lauda to my trust list now."
Did he get hacked? What the fuck is happening?
I thought trust wasn't moderated, this is some weird deep shit. I regret being a DT1 member from day one fuck this.
You should distrust Lauda from your trust list. Theymos probably means that BSV is ~insane from a technical standpoint, but has not caused anyone harm by existing. His exact words were "BSV is a scammy project created by two conmen". Okay. Thanks for that. This doesn’t change the need to wait for the person behind the account (or business behind it), to scam to create this kind of flag. |
|
|
|
Some super weird shit is happening with theymos.
He asked me to remove lauda from my trust list, and not just that, told me to distrust her. He says BSV is scam but they need to break a contract to to be able identified as a scam.
I replied him "If it is a scam, it doesn't need a broken contract. Please start to make sense dude. I am taking lauda to my trust list now."
Did he get hacked? What the fuck is happening?
I thought trust wasn't moderated, this is some weird deep shit. I regret being a DT1 member from day one fuck this.
You should distrust Lauda from your trust list. Theymos probably means that BSV is ~insane from a technical standpoint, but has not caused anyone harm by existing. |
|
|
|
|
Lauda made an affirmation that was untrue. Why would anyone believe what Lauda says in the future if he is willing to knowingly and intentionally affirm (promise to be true) some untrue?
|
|
|
|
Word spaghetti
Have you actually clicked any of the links in the OP? I have not shared my personal opinion about Bitcoin Cash nor has it anything to do with it. Roger Ver is intentionally promoting an altcoin as Bitcoin, which causes people to lose money. Feel free to point out which of the evidence I have provided is false or out of context and I will happily redact it. It is a difference in opinion from your opinion. I am fairly confident that he believes his representations, and he is not leading people to believe they are getting a large discount on the bitcoin cash they buy. As I stated, you should ask someone capable of making a well rounded argument to argue against the technical aspects of bitcoin cash. Perhaps Rodger Ver will respond with his own arguments and any one can come to their own conclusions. Yet again, this accusation has nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash or its technical aspects. Read the OP, click the links and show me which one of them shouldn't be regarded as misleading or fraudulent. You are ignoring the fact he believes bitcoin cash to be bitcoin. There isn’t any in charge of naming various coins that decided bitcoin is named bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I recommend that you remove him from your trust list if you have him there, and distrust him by adding ~Lauda to your trust list. and it didn't come from CryptoHunter.... The PM leaked a minute after it was sent, that's how much they trust him. If he blacklists, he centralizes. That is the right way. I wonder what would happen if sufficient people refused this (which I would not advise for).  they clearly trust him enough to use his forum. IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose. |
|
|
|
As I stated, you should ask someone capable of making a well rounded argument to argue against the technical aspects of bitcoin cash. Perhaps Rodger Ver will respond with his own arguments and any one can come to their own conclusions.
Roger Ver is not capable of making technical arguments. The clown-hat of the day goes to you. If this is true, it should be easy to successfully argue against using or buying bitcoin cash with your own technical arguments. |
|
|
|
If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
I agree therefore I'm suggesting to make the links to the research materials easier to see. I'm a big fan of informed decisions. Part of doing your own research is understanding how the system works. If you make the indicator too “large” you are moving into the range of telling someone not to trade with the person, and imposing your opinions on others. |
|
|
|
Word spaghetti
Have you actually clicked any of the links in the OP? I have not shared my personal opinion about Bitcoin Cash nor has it anything to do with it. Roger Ver is intentionally promoting an altcoin as Bitcoin, which causes people to lose money. Feel free to point out which of the evidence I have provided is false or out of context and I will happily redact it. It is a difference in opinion from your opinion. I am fairly confident that he believes his representations, and he is not leading people to believe they are getting a large discount on the bitcoin cash they buy. As I stated, you should ask someone capable of making a well rounded argument to argue against the technical aspects of bitcoin cash. Perhaps Rodger Ver will respond with his own arguments and any one can come to their own conclusions. |
|
|
|
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.
I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?
Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams. This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone. On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more.  This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:
Due to the factors mentioned in the above topic, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on any mere disagreements I may have with the user. The threshold is that: *you believe *anyone* trading with the person had a *high risk* of loosing money *The conclusion is based on a set of circumstances that *any* knowledgeable and reasonable forum member would agree with *The flag is not based on a disagreement with the person. |
|
|
|
|
If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
|
|
|
|
in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.
Another assumption. Nonsense. No reasonable person would believe it is unsafe to trust with me. I have been trusted with large amounts of money by multiple people without incident or complaints. When someone retaliates they don’t admit to this. You really are a tool. On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.
More nonsense. The standard is what a reasonable person would believe, not what you believe. On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.
"Libel: The written or published (media, print, signs, etc…) false assertion of fact communicated to a third-party, which ultimately causes damage to another person’s reputation." I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions. More nonsense. Hhampuz is a scammer (he stole money). I never entered into any kind of implied agreement with him to not call him out when I believe him to be scamming. |
|
|
|
I stand behind cabalism13 100% and have seen nothing that would warrant me to remove them from the campaign.
It appears you are willing to pay people other businesses money in exchange for these people to post what advances your agenda, or more specifically what advances the agenda of those you are a puppet of. Sad.
Edit: I gave the OP 4 merit out of my personal stash to allow him to rank up. I don’t endorse the majority of his behavior, however calling out someone who is getting paid to troll is something that should be encouraged. |
|
|
|
It appears Hhampuz has added a flag with this thread as a reference in retaliation for my calling him out for stealing funds from BestMixer.
*accusing him of stealing funds from BestMixer. No, he actually stole money from BestMixer, but the difference doesn’t matter in the context of this thread— in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation. |
|
|
|
It appears that Hhampuz took out a loan in the amount of 0.5 btc not long before he what I now believe to be him stealing the btc from BestMixer.
Based on the above, I believe Hhampuz to have used the money from BestMixer to repay his debts.
I think you accidently forgot to include a link to his loan request. It was made in private.... So you are basing your statement on the feedback that Darkstar left him, without knowing when the loan took place or without having a txid to prove the funds are connected to ChipMixer? The feedback was left on 08/06/2019, over two and a half weeks after he allegedly embezzled 0.53 BTC. You aren't supplying any facts here (as usual), just more figments of your imagination. I do have txids and I know the loan was taken prior to the funds being stolen by Hhampuz. If you are so confident that Hhampuz is innocent, why don’t you ask him about the loan? Or are you more concerned about protecting Hhampuz... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
