|
Somewhat off topic but why did TF leave you negative feedback calling you a scammer? It was left when his opinion was valued by most of the community.
|
|
|
|
Do you remember the details behind the negative trust you left takagari? It was left in September 2013 which is I believe when your opinion was highly valued and you were still trusted. There is a thread in meta regarding his reputation, feel free to chime in. |
|
|
|
I can't...!?
according to your sent trust you lent him 100 btc and got back 120 btc. There was no thread regarding this loan. Can you post both txid's of the loan and repayment? |
|
|
|
I trust luckyknc we ve done several trades and one loan. Also he run a legit raffle some months ago.
why don't you lend him the 85 btc then? |
|
|
|
There is quarantee that ltcgear will pay. My ltcgear accounts make 100 btc per week due to delay payment i offer very good % in return. The loan is 85 btc you take 30 more back. If there is any more delay in payment i will give 3 more bitcoins for every extra day.
sounds like a ltcgear shill to me |
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this collateral is worthless
|
|
|
|
looks like the neg is gone...Thank you Vod!
He left neutral trust showing that he clearly does not like the OP I really hate hypocrites. People that complain about you doing something, then do it themselves. I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the rating. I agree that he should have been much more patient. In regards to your comment about him not being able to handle a customer service job: it takes a certain skill set to work in a customer service environment. You need a lot of patience and the ability to "bite your tongue" when people are being assholes towards you. Most people are not qualified/fit to work in these kinds of jobs |
|
|
|
|
The community acts as the checks and balances of the trust system. People can make arguments against certain ratings and upon receipt of a valid argument any person who wants to maintain his reputation will remove/adjust any such invalid ratings.
If they do not do so then the community will not take their ratings seriously anymore.
|
|
|
|
looks like the neg is gone...Thank you Vod!
He left neutral trust showing that he clearly does not like the OP |
|
|
|
Negative trust seems to be a bit excessive in my opinion. This seems way too specific to be made up, although I have no knowledge of Canadian zipcodes. Is the 000 thing really a dead giveaway that he isn't Canadian? A liar is a liar is a liar. He lies about something as simple as this, what else will he lie about? Canadian Postal Codes are in the form X0X 0X0, where X is a letter, and 0 is a number. There are no Os. According to this post his zip code is r0e0k0 and the "trick" is to use the three numbers in the Canadian zip code, add two zeros at the end to provide a zip code that hulu accepts. If you are talking about the capital letter "oh" then I don't think he was implying that was part of his zip code. |
|
|
|
Lol thanks but VOD didn't lose me a job..
I'm an owner of the atm already,
no that's not him.
If you read the thread, and my rating
he found a march posting of me wanting a USD credit card to get a hulu account with (or hulu account)
where I stated the fake Postal code trick did not work for me
Than stated I used a fake postal code (beware)
and left negative.
He had nothing to do with the $1500 deal (only hundred... not a job..)
it was something I discussed this afternoon and my current trader rating hurt me.
He lives in norther Alberta. I'm in Manitoba. Likely 1100 miles apart or so.
No I understand what he said on his trust rating, however the fact that he was asked about you could have been the reason why he looked into a thread that was so old. Without knowing the details of the deal/job I really can't say what an appropriate solution would be for you. My first instinct would be to suggest some kind of on forum escrow service however this may or may not be applicable to your specific situation. If you are 1,100 miles away from each other then I would somewhat doubt that your trader knows him personally, however we do live in a global economy so who knows. My experience with Vod is that he is generally a reasonable person, so I would think he will eventually see this thread and either give some kind of more detailed explanation or remove the rating. |
|
|
|
Well, I just lost out on a $1500 deal because of my rating. Shady yes, I tried to explain it away, but nope I've done deals with people who havn't left feedback, as I've left more than I've gotten. I'm not some random. I run an ATM in a major Canadian City. Look here's me on the far right :O  Had VOD asked for an explanation. Details or even commented to question before slandering me without reason. It could of been an easy fix. Is that Vod on the left? I would personally find it somewhat disconcerting if/when a potential employer/contractor makes a hiring decision based on a rating on a forum. That is generally not something that I would think would be a valid reason to make a decision to or to not do business with someone at that large of a scale. I know that Vod is based in Canada (I think somewhere in western Canada, but am not 100% on this) so he may have been asked about you and this could have explained the reason why he gave you a negative the same day they made a decision not to hire you/deal with you). If this was the case the fact that he gave a negative trust rating on here would probably not have affected your chances of getting that deal. If that is not the case then I would find it very strange that Vod happened to give you a negative rating the exact day that you lost a deal........ |
|
|
|
As I said previously, careless and or stupid people will be parted from their money no matter how many warnings we give them or how many users try to play whack-a-mole. When this community began there was no one really around "scambusting" like they do today. People had individual transactions, and if they went bad they were then themselves free to make accusations and it was generally judged on its merits. Since the community is much larger now and more filled with less technically proficient people, and more scammers this kind of individual attention to cases is restricted. Yet in spite of this the level of penalty enforcement has not decreased along with the decreased standard of evidence against users. This results in a very divisive and destructive type of infighting that is counterproductive in building trust networks and simply results in making them a tool of extortion and harassment because everyone is ready to engage in a witch hunt. How do you think the first of us around here had to learn these things? We did it BY BUILDING OUR OWN TRUST NETWORKS, and taking managed and informed risks, not relying on green and red numbers. In the end all the scammer has to do is make a new name. Does playing whack-a-mole endlessly on random usernames really stop them? What is an acceptable level of innocent people caught up in this? How much is an acceptable amount of their money, time, and effort burnt because of a careless false accusation? Can the cryptocoin community really afford to be burning people who want to honestly contribute now days? We are doing more to burn the users who want to contribute here than we are to punish the scammers. This policy is doing far more damage to this community than scammers ever could. And for what? Just to make the scammer change his username and try again. The current trust system will reduce the number of people who will carelessly send money to scammers. The default trust system makes it so newer users (and users who have little/no trading experience) to get somewhat of an idea as to how safe it is to trade with someone. Any potential trade with extreme caution tag would hopefully cause a newer user to do additional research prior to trading with someone and hopefully finding a trusted escrow provider who can provide some additional level of protection for both parties. This is especially true with newer users who receive negative trust as their reputation is worth nothing and can easily create a new account without such tag. As I mentioned before it is always appropriate to ask the "tough" questions to someone trying to do business. If they are honest they should have no problem either answering such questions or being honest they either do not wish to answer or cannot answer such questions. If it is any of the later then they likely have something to hide and it is likely the fact that they are trying to in some way scam. Anyone operating legitimately has an incentive to answer the "tough" questions because doing so adds a layer of legitimacy to their business. Playing wach-a-mole does stop the scammers because they either need to buy a new account (which takes money) or need to create a new account which comes with time intensive countermeasures against scamming and are largely ineffective for scamming. As I mentioned before decreasing the scam rate, even marginally will help the bitcoin economy and the chances of bitcoin's success. As you become a more experienced trader you should rely less on the default trust network and rely on your own trust network. You should either update your trust list or remember in your head who is trustworthy and who is not. Once you are an experienced trader you should give out negative trust only when someone has either scammed or when they are attempting to scam, or appear to be likely to attempt to scam in the future. You should not give trust to anyone you have a personal disagreement with as anyone who trusts your opinion may not want to trade with such person in the future over something personal. I do use an alternate account to view someone's trust feedback from the point of view that someone sees it by "default" as well as looking at feedback from my own trust network. I will share my trust network, you (or anyone else) is free to create a similar trust network or to add myself to their trust list to stay up to date as to whose feedback I personally deem accurate theymos
Gavin Andresen
gmaxwell
~TECSHARE
Vod
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
BadBear
Blazr
DannyHamilton
~jasonslow
escrow.ms
Stunna
DefaultTrust
hilariousandco
~redsn0w
OldScammerTag Without some kind of "default" trust network then a newer trader is not going to have any way of knowing who they should trust and who they should not trust. Any potential false accusation can be openly discussed here for anyone to see (as well as in the sales thread if an accusation is made via a posting instead of via trust). Any party potentially considering to trade with such person can take such discussion into consideration. Just because someone screams "scam" does not mean that something or someone is a scam, trust me I know from personal experience (I have had plenty of people be upset with me for various reasons that do not have to do with my potential to scam and have made false accusations against me, it did not negatively affect my ability to trade and if anything it highlighted my previous success). This is horse shit. I have very little in positive, so because of this dip shit
Trust: -2: -1 / +1(1)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
When using the above trust network I see you as: I do see you as you describe above when only using the default trust network. I find my trust network more accurate. From the looks of it you do not trade very much so I would find it somewhat unlikely that you would be affected in ways other then ego (not that I am defending this apparent trust rating that is probably not warranted). I think it would be very appropriate for Vod to chime in to give some kind of explanation regarding his trust report to the OP |
|
|
|
Everyone is so paranoid here that any inconsistency is grounds for scam accusations in their minds. IMO these people perpetrating this "scambusting" type activity are simply doing it to stoke their egos, because in the end the only person that can stop you from getting scammed is you. They might prevent a handful of the really dumb scammers from scamming temporarily, but thats about it. Additionally training everyone to take everyone eles's opinion rather than using your own critical thought to judge if someone is a scammer is training people to only trust those in authority (default trust list) while they scream about trusting no one. As a result no one is ever actually trusted because escrow is always used, therefore real trust networks are not formed any more. Using escrow doesn't prove somone trust worthy. Someone having an opportunity to steal from you and CHOOSING NOT TO is actually how you build real trust. Combine this with time and escalated value of trades and you have a real trust network, not just meaningless green and red numbers.
This community has accepted the "trust sytem" over actual trust networks of individuals you have personally traded with. The key is KNOWING your trading partner, not being so paranoid you are fearful of everyone who says something a little off and accuse them of scamming. Frankly these "scambusters" are harming this community tremendously in order to protect careless and or stupid people who will get scammed anyway because they don't bother to research their trading partners. In effect this "Scambusting" type behavior is becoming a lot more destructive than the scams it supposedly protects us from. IMO this community has become so obsessed with punishing scammers that they are no longer interested in actual justice or due process any more, only vengeance. Burn them all and let God sort it out.
I would disagree. There is one lender in the lending section that has started to give very high risk loans, including to people with negative trust without collateral (or insufficient collateral). As a result there have been a significant increase in the number of obvious loan scammers in the lending subform recently. Some of the loans have been repaid, however I am going to say that they were done so in order to give confidence to the scammers and to increase the willingness to give loans to scammers. Most newer, inexperienced users/traders are not going to know how to properly spot a scam nor do they know how to otherwise protect themselves. The default trust system, at lest somewhat helps newer users determine who should be trusted and who should not be. The concept of sending a payment that cannot be disputed/charged back is not something that many people truly understand, therefore many people who are new to bitcoin will likely trade under the presumption they will have the same scam protections that payment methods like credit cards offer (and that they will obviously not receive when dealing with bitcoin). You are in a unique situation that you do not need to "send first" when trading with others therefore you have a much greater insight as to if someone is trying to scam you or not. Most other people do not have this luxury. There have been a huge number of scams that relate to bitcoin both on this forum and off forum. It is in everyone's interest that owns bitcoin to prevent bitcoin related scams from happening because a high number of bitcoin scams means less confidence in bitcoin overall and a lower bitcoin price. It may or may not be appropriate for people to call out "scam" on the drop of a hat, however it is very appropriate for people to ask tough questions when they see questionable activity and if appropriate answers are not given to defiantly call out "scam" |
|
|
|
Loan Amount: 0.06
repayment : 0.07
Repayment Terms : 1 week
Collaterral: cryptomine account with 0.1 TH/s
addy : 1P2GhLnPtzXHANPBoi5Ludj21VLe1fnxhk
This is like the 7th request you have made under similar terms. Do you think anyone is going to lend you this? |
|
|
|
Well I guess we will see what happens once it is payment time. I understand some of the complaints I guess...sad state this forum is in these days  The scammers have really made us not trust anyone at all anymore. I guess it probably won't affect a lot of the trusted members either way marginally since a lot of them have a lot of bitcoin from it's early days. They also tend to post a lot regardless of if they are getting paid to do so. There are a lot of scams on here, more then there should be. There does need to be a better way to do a better job of preventing scams from succeeding. |
|
|
|
FWIW it is very possible that WhatsBitcoin is just a spammer (as he appears to be) as I have seen him making a lot of spam like posts. They both are enrolled in bit mixer so one additional post should count equally for both accounts. actually this might be true if it was the other way around but not the way you described. Do you have a screen shot of the post by WhatsBitcoin? By the way, I do have some more proof which points out, that both users are same. Would be happy to show it to you, if you have positive trust.
I am not sure I am who you are looking for, but I can potentially vouch for your proof/evidence if I can follow it |
|
|
|
I am not sure the issue is here..
-Grabbing people with good reps is a smart move Correct. He should probably be more transparent about it though. -They paid last month with no issues Technically true, however his reputation is worth significantly less then the amount he will owe signature participants. He has no trading history on the forum which leads me to believe Carra23 is a purchased account that is being controlled by the operators of Cryptomine. There is nothing wrong with this however I believe the account was purchased with the intention of giving a false sense of credibility of the signature campaign. -Sniping is just how things often happen - no need to be mad about it. Also correct. In the future you should not publicly post things that were sent via PM (Private Message) - it is rude.
He should have gotten permission prior to publicly quoting what people say in a PM. |
|
|
|
What was the reason for the ban? I believe bans usually say why you are banned. I would think it would be because you were making a lot of short, insubstantial (aka shit posts) in short succession. I counted 8 of these posts just today and the last two pages of your post history appear to be mostly one liners and loan requests.
yes i forgot that they have to be a little longer,so i didnt see that they were so short that dosent happen to me usually,so im appealing to moderators to please remove my ban i will be more carefull in the futureYour posts don't need to be any specific length, they can be several paragraphs and still be insubstantial. They need to somehow add to the conversation. I am guessing that if you got a 30 day ban then you have probably been banned before. The previous ban (if such one existed) was a warning to you so you can change your posting behavior. This serves as a similar warning |
|
|
|
|
What was the reason for the ban? I believe bans usually say why you are banned. I would think it would be because you were making a lot of short, insubstantial (aka shit posts) in short succession. I counted 8 of these posts just today and the last two pages of your post history appear to be mostly one liners and loan requests.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
