not sure what you're referring to specifically. i was largely talking about the examples and personal attacks that have been aimed at me, which i've directly responded to.

in general, i think we should be talking about patterns/repeated abuse of the trust system. we should also give everyone a chance to rehabilitate wrongfully given negative trust. we should be seeking out peaceful resolution instead of finger pointing. you may have noticed that i have made painstaking efforts not to accuse any person of wrongdoing, despite having to defend myself from multiple unprovoked personal attacks. perhaps worth reiterating:



everybody should probably have a threshold where another user's feedback/trust list is not valuable, or is detrimental to the trust system. at that point, they should probably remove or exclude that user.

should one instance of questionable feedback over many years be enough to reach that threshold? it's up to individuals to make that determination. like i mentioned earlier, there is unfortunately some nuance required here and i'm having trouble deciding exactly how to deal with it:

iCEBREAKER


in my view, any movement whatsoever away from the current situation of rampant trust abuse and towards any standards whatsoever for negative DT feedback would be an achievement. there is all sorts of room for middle ground between the status quo and the what is stated in the OP.

nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.

i was involuntarily thrown into this discussion by virtue of my inclusion in the OP, but i do agree with the call for a general shift away from "no standards" and towards "some objective standards". i'm willing to stand behind that, and i hope there are other reasonable people out there who share that view.

it's impossible to fully remove human subjectivity, prevent all conflict, or account for every possible situation with these kind of standards. that doesn't mean we can't honestly work towards a more fair system that is not characterized by rampant "frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags". it's incumbent on anyone who wants to move away from that sort of a system to do their own research and customize their trust lists accordingly.

now you're just talking nonsense.

nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority" here. i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so here. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion and repeatedly personally attack me for it, which is incredibly petty. get over it.

and yes, this is a tangent that has absolutely fuck all to do with the topic. there's no reason to write a half dozen posts attacking me personally over this in an obvious attempt to discredit me. your repeated mischaracterizations and petty personal attacks are getting old. you clearly have no intention of discussing the issue at hand.


it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work. i said repeatedly that i wasn't accusing anyone of wrongdoing, but you decided to repeatedly twist my words into an "accusation" anyway. 3 posts later, you're still trying to attack me for this! wtf?


i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references. both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:

part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.

in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.

@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.

~24 hours left until the tourney starts. 5 players registered so far.

0.0025 BTC added. increased to 0.005 BTC if we can get 15+ players. get in the game guys!

i'll post the password in this thread later today. PM me if you want it sooner.

this case relies on very specific facts to justify the money laundering charge. mixing outputs is not itself a crime. knowingly mixing coins from a DNM is also not a crime since it doesn't prove the mixer knew the underlying financial transaction involved criminal proceeds.


the partnership with alphabay and other DNMs showcases the explicit agreement required for the conspiracy charge. explicit advertisement as a money laundering service fulfills the "willful intent to commit a crime" requirement.

that's how the DOJ made this case.

liquid doesn't leverage bitcoin's security. it's a federated chain currently secured by 35 members. 51% of the validators could technically collude and steal funds on the liquid sidechain.

that's unlikely though. its security guarantees are obviously pretty strong.

the most interesting thing about liquid (aside from instant transactions) is CT---output amounts and the number of participants can be hidden on-chain. so, better on-chain privacy guarantees vs bitcoin.

i'm curious what liquid transactions cost for end users. presumably they are very cheap since bitfinex charges nothing for liquid withdrawals, but i wonder what the required fee is (if any) when you send L-BTC from your own wallet. https://blockstream.com/2019/07/05/en-liquid-arrives-on-green/

it all looks pretty appealing for short term/day-to-day usage. liquid even integrates with stablecoins like tether too.

which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions? i think that's fairly self-evident and not worth arguing over, but we can agree to disagree. it's an opinion, and i don't mind being associated with it.

i don't think that implies that i'm "reckless with facts" but it's cute how you're now piling on ad hominems so you can continue distracting from the actual topic.

as a reminder, the issue is whether claims related to negative trust feedback are substantiated. the issue is not whether "every opinion figmentofmyass expresses" is substantiated.

should i pick apart every sentence you utter, asking you to "substantiate" everything you say? this is the height of false equivalence! i'm asking for people to substantiate their claims regarding negative trust, not meet ridiculous standards for every opinion they express when writing a post on bitcointalk.

if you had anything useful to say, you would address the topic---whether there should be objective standards regarding the trust system, whether DT negative trust should require any standards whatsoever, etc---rather than distracting with ridiculous off-topic tangents, fallacies, and ad hominem attacks.


+1.

the contention is around what constitutes "shady behavior". for example, i posted a link earlier ITT of a case of DT2 negative trust where the only evidence provided was the victim's trust list. that seems like outright trust abuse, but it's become acceptable now.

nobody seems to be able to say what standards even exist for the trust system at all. really, there are none. it's a "might makes right" system where combating trust abuse is incredibly difficult due to the forces of inertia.

my theory: nobody on DT wants to "rock the boat" and step out of line because they know how commonplace retaliatory tags and retaliatory trust exclusions are, and they don't want to lose their status/reputation. it's much easier to brush the issue under the rug and act like trust abuse doesn't exist. nobody wants to directly antagonize trust abusers either, for obvious reasons.

it's a shitty situation but one we find ourselves in nonetheless. this is why i encourage anyone and everyone to begin using customized trust lists, so we can perhaps establish a new consensus that might better represent public opinion.


indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact".

still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish

and who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent.


+1

what a fucking straw man. i never said it was a fact. it was an opinion.

"established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact.

why the fuck are you creating these useless tangents, if not to distract? to convey what i mean, this is the post you responded to:


why did you take the third sentence, completely mischaracterize it as an "accusation", twist my words to imply i presented something as "fact" (when i didn't), and then proceed to ignore the entire post?

i already know why---because straw man arguments are the only thing you know.

no word from @efialtis? i thought it was a 7-day thing.


just a few of us so far. last tourney, it looked about the same at this point. i expect players to start filtering in towards the weekend. several people have confirmed or requested the password via PM, so i'm optimistic.

if worse comes to worst, we'll have a short single table tournament playing for an extra 0.0025 BTC. not the end of the world.

it's not an accusation. it's literally how the trust system works. in fact, i'm actually encouraging people to customize their trust lists so they can vote who they want onto DT1 the same way.

unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.

so you're just saying "i'm currently on DT1 and other people currently on DT1 haven't net excluded me"?

wow okay, well that's sort of a circular meaningless argument that ignores the whole point of this thread. we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.

that's what we're trying to change. one of the primary purposes of this thread (IMO) is to say that the rest of the forum can have a vote too: you only need 10 earned merits and then you can participate and affect the default trust system by "voting" for objective/fair members and against biased/unfair members.

even people who have been wronged by DT trust abuse can help to remove their abusers from DT. one of the crucial elements is that you must include members as well since a member's trust list must include 10+ users before they can be on DT1.

so people need to do more than just exclude abusers and hope DT1 members do the same---they need to build bigger trust networks (with inclusions) so they can actually affect the DT1 lottery or be voted in themselves.

this is a numbers game. if everyone keeps refusing to customize their trust list, then nothing will change. the same people will keep voting themselves onto DT1 and perpetuating the current system.

Vires In Numeris.

i also appreciate that TECSHARE has provided some reasonable cover for people who want to include/exclude people in the OP. on this forum, some DT members have been known to use their position to publicly/privately pressure other members into changing their trust lists. this culture of intimidation (combined with fear of DT retaliation) stifles honest usage of the trust system.

perhaps OSG could allow us to create somewhat of a "united front", which DT abusers tend to enjoy, but which the abused never have the privilege of.

what did nutildah mean then, precisely? i am in the vast minority of what, exactly?

at the very least, nutildah claimed to represent the vast majority of the community. i was merely directly responding to that. (but tbh, if i'm part of the group in question, we must be talking about at least many thousands if not millions of other nobodies in the community)

it's cute how you try to contort someone else's mischaracterization and project it on me though. like i said, this kind of fallacious bullshit from you is 100% expected.

direct response to:


nutildah is claiming to speak for the vast majority. i am not.


"too many to be counted" was accurate. i can't go back 7 years and count all the people i've seen ruined by trust abuse---that's insane. nor can i estimate the number of people who would rather keep their mouth shut (for fear of DT retaliation) rather than speak out against abuse. (i can only say i was one of those people for many years)


nutildah claims to speak for the vast majority. i merely pointed out the fact that he is attempting to speak for millions of members, which is ridiculous.

source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=mlist;sort=realName;start=0


thanks for staying true to form and deleting all context so you can argue against straw men.

if you insist on engaging in this kind of fallacious bullshit, please direct it at nutildah, who is the one actually making ridiculous claims.

you're conveniently ignoring the part where "scam busting" should require the overwhelming consensus of the community.

there is obviously no overwhelming consensus behind you, hence the never-ending and vitriolic fighting on the reputation board. you guys are very clearly "creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth." (-theymos)


good luck proving that, lol. a handful of self-proclaimed "scam busters" on the reputation board does not represent the vast majority of board members. 

the vast majority of board members neglect to use their trust list (perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps because they think it's pointless when there is already an existing power structure, perhaps out of fear of retribution). that doesn't give you the right to speak for all those people! this situation is just a holdover from the original DT system since hardly anyone utilizes trust lists. i'm hoping we can encourage others to speak up. (if only with their trust lists)

i've been around a lot longer than many of these "scam busters". i have avoided doing business on bitcointalk all these years for 2 reasons:

1. going back to 2013, i've seen countless people run off the forum by unjustified trust abuse and public attacks
2. the forum's general tolerance of doxxing

i've ignored the reputation board and neglected my trust list until very recently for those reasons too. countless other people (like me) have opinions on these matters but do not share them, for obvious reasons.

props to TECSHARE for consistent willingness to speak out against rampant abuse. most people in his position would just disappear from the forum in the face of such concerted attacks by abusive DT members.  if not for him, i wouldn't be here---i'd be staying silent for fear of retribution from DT. (unsurprisingly, i've already had multiple of you self-styled DT "scam busters" arbitrarily publicly attack me (unprovoked) after starting to share my opinions in "reputation" last month. i have no doubt this will continue)

yet if i weren't in this thread today (or on the reputation board last month) arguing my views, nutildah & co would be claiming that i was part of the "vast majority" supporting his scam busting. obviously nothing could be further from the truth!

see how you wrongfully take ownership of millions of board members' opinions by claiming you have their support? you don't. a handful of people who are active in meta/reputation trading trust inclusions does not translate to overwhelming support of the community!


it is impossible to entirely remove subjectivity from human matters. we aren't gods. stop using that as a basis to argue that we shouldn't have any standards at all.

TECSHARE is simply encouraging us to move away from a system with zero standards, towards one with more objective standards.

will it achieve perfection? no. will there still be drama as long as red tags exist? yes. these aren't good reasons to stifle progress towards a better system with less trust abuse.

it's true, bitpay is ridiculous. i was buying a gift card yesterday through the bitpay wallet and they tried to charge me > 0.0002 BTC (> $2) in network+miner fees. if there is a very small increase in network congestion, they exponentially increases the required fees.

i imported my seed into electrum and saved by shopping elsewhere. it's too bad reliable amazon gift card vendors are becoming so hard to find.

indeed, people are even getting DT2 negative trust just for adding/excluding people from their trust list. the standards on the reputation board are completely out of control. a recent example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487377;dt

at this point, a "scam buster" need only make an unproven or arbitrary accusation, point to the accusation in a trust page reference, and get a few of his buddies to agree---that's the standard for red trust now. proof of wrongdoing is never a requirement.


full quote, emphasis mine:

bitcoin is great for merchants---fast settlement and irreversible payments. this payment irreversibility does not favor consumers. it means there is no arbiter like a bank/credit card issuer who can recover the consumer's money in case of dispute.

if it's a situation where i need consumer protection (untrusted vendor, unreliable delivery, etc) i would opt for a reversible payment method.


if you defraud/cheat someone, the same legal standards and police/court jurisdiction applies whether you do it with BTC or $. you can still be sued or arrested.

all bitcoin does is remove intermediaries, so an intermediary can't claw back the payment.

exclusions aren't just about whether you trust someone (eg in a trade). they indicate whether you trust someone else's judgment (eg about their inclusions) and their use of feedback.

anarchist societies practice ostracization as a non-violent means to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. that's all TECSHARE is encouraging---the use of non-violent consensus to ostracize bad actors. this is the only say that individuals have in a group that operates by general consensus.


humans are subjective, no escaping that. does that mean we can't strive towards objective standards?

BUMP! the game is 4 days away!

several people have PMed me saying they plan to register. the sooner the better, guys! we still need 12+ more people to get that extra 0.0025 BTC added by @buwaytress.