Although the discussion of Lauda’s tag is important in itself, it is not the key issue here.  At least as of Loyce’s last scrape, suchmoon was ~Lauda, and had been for some time.  It would at least be consistent for suchmoon to both ~nullius and ~Lauda, even if I think it is wrong.

Whereas the issue that suchmoon has been consistently avoiding is that I supported two negatives (plus the implication of a neutral that said to be “countered”—hereby irrelevant; I assume it was a negative downgraded to neutral).  One is Lauda’s.  The other is Vod’s.  Whereas suchmoon is not only not ~Vod, but positively includes him.

I have repeatedly said that my position will not change:  suchmoon, go ahead and ~nullius, just as long as you also ~Vod because it’s also his tag that I am supporting.

And Vod’s tag is not about trolling.*  It is about trust abuse.

(* Actually, I think that Lauda’s tag is about more than trolling as it seems it’s being characterized; but I will set that aside for now.)

Parenthetically, I must note that nutildah’s referenced evidence of trust system abuse by TECSHARE, which I quoted fully above, is in my opinion far stronger than the evidence that nutildah presented against PrimeNumber7’s identity—evidence which suchmoon did not consider to be inadequate.  (To avoid a red herring, I emphasize that I am only comparing evidence by nutildah that was deemed adequate by suchmoon; hilarious’ separate evidence on PN7 is irrelevant in this thread, as is the PN7 issue generally.)

I briefly set forth the above, yet again, in the hope that the discussion will not continue to be diverted away from this issue.

---

As the thread stands, it seems the outcome must be a choice between the following:

• suchmoon excludes me for a tag that says on its face that it is supporting two tags, one of which she agrees with—whereas it is clear that I would have made the tag if either Lauda’s trolling-tag or Vod’s trust-abuse tag existed.  Excluding me for a tag that you partly agree with, partly disagree with, is not a sound exercise of judgment.
• suchmoon excludes me for a tag that she wholly disagrees with, but fails to exclude both the authors of the tags that I am supporting.
• suchmoon fairly excludes everybody who has made these tags contradicting her standards.  I would not argue further with this.  I would think it’s wrong; but this is one point where I would simply “agree to disagree”.
• After having been on good terms with me since 2018 without any specific criticism of my tags, suchmoon searches my sent feedback history for new reasons to exclude me in the manner of a prosecutor with a vendetta who decides, “We’ve got to get this guy for something!”  I will avoid commenting on how corrupt I think that would be.
  
  
  Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 04:36:29 PM
  Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 04:21:08 PM

  a singular rating which you disagree
  

  
  Definitely not a single rating in nullius' case. At least one other was already mentioned in this thread, and that's just for the last two days. There are 3 or 4 other reds that I consider inappropriate so for me that makes the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough for an exclusion.

Some of these options are mutually exclusive; some may overlap with others.  Any which way, I really do not see any other options here; suggestions would be duly appreciated.

If you are too blind to see that you have made a fool of yourself in this thread by defending arrant nonsense with mulish stubbornness, and potentially alienated people who are not me with a public display of rash ~threats, peremptory demands that others recognize your personal feedback standard as an official forum standard ~or ~else, deafening silence when I point to (and even fully quote) the substantive grounds for one of the tags that I am supporting (a trust-abuse tag on OP!), shifting of goalposts with bizarre illogic about trust lemons, and a score of other displays of poor judgment, then it is ill-advised, but suddenly unsurprising for you to top that off with such a too-indignant “My what now?” as I would expect from someone throwing a chldish tantrum about being caught out as wrong.

And if your reply to my patent olive branch, which I pointedly concluded with a hint to others, is:


...then I cannot but say, “I am sorry you feel that way”, and express my sincere regret that I wasted hours of my time attempting in good faith to talk this out with you, in public and in private (upon your contact to me and not vice versa).  TECSHARE could not have gotten that from me.  I would probably have flatly ignored this thread but for you, but for the considerable respect that I had for you, and but for my belief that you would do your “deescalation” for your own part of a dispute that you yourself not only ~escalated, but substantially ~created in the very second post on this thread.  —Or that at least, you would “agree to disagree”, as I have been willing to do all along.  You well know that I disagree with your personal standard for tags, and that I discuss it civilly or just “agree to disagree” if you are not waving ~ in my face.


That which you peremptorily declare an official, quasi-binding forum standard, contrary to all evidence (such as examples shown by Lauda above), is indeed your pet issue—your peculiarly petty pet issue, at this point—and nothing more.


ok

---

If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinion—and I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoon’s seemingly quite similar opinion.  But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?

I observe that your theymos quote starts with, “...in my view...”  Certainly, that is important to consider; but it is not exactly as if he were laying down the law, especially when so many past feedbacks by himself and others do not comply with the standard he thereby states.

I further observe that nobody on my inclusions list seems to have exactly the same standards as I do—no, not even Lauda; and there are many well-known users, including (hereto) suchmoon, who have been neither included nor excluded by me, because I “agree to disagree” with reasonable differences of opinion on such matters.  (And there are others whom I deliberately neither include nor exclude for other reasons, but that is irrelevant here.)

Though that was addressed to Lauda, it is disingenuous whereas you are arguing with Lauda over what you said here:


“Agree to disagree” is exactly what I would tell you (and have, in essence told you) when you express to me your opinion about the proper standard for negative feedback.  But you are not “agreeing to disagree”.


And how?  ~ exists precisely for the purpose excluding people who make invalid use of the trust system, i.e. persons with poor judgment; and inclusions exist precisely for the purpose of categorically endorsing someone else’s trust decisions as “valid”.


You are shifting the goalposts (and it is not the first time that I have seen you do that in an argument).

The question here is not what people can do.  Reductio ad absurdum, I can issue negative feedback to Lauda with PROOF that she is a WITCH (Reference — She turned me into a newt.).  “Feedback is unmoderated.”  But the predictable result is that any sane person would ~nullius.

Don’t state the obvious fact that people can do anything with trust feedback, when we are discussing your express support for TECSHARE’s demand of ~nullius on grounds that I am supporting good tags by Lauda and Vod.

---

To avoid waste of time, I will not reach other fallacies in your argument.

suchmoon, with candour and not hostility, I must observe that at this point, the only reason why I don’t immediately ~suchmoon is that I will not join you in grandstanding over a pet issue in some way that backfires against big-picture, important objectives.  You are sharp in investigations, and you issue (usually) good tags within your own narrow standards; your downfall would be celebrated by exactly the types of characters who are cheering you in this thread.  Thus, although I think that you are showing poor judgment in this thread, I prefer, if practicable, to take the high road and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by obsessing over one tree in the forest—even if I am admittedly enough peeved to be tossing out awful mixed metaphors.  (Sorry, folks.)  And I encourage others to think likewise.

TECSHARE, I am not a bull before whom a red flag can be waved (as I noticed one of your supporters recently also tried on another thread—much more subtly).  Unlike some here, I will not take your bait.

---

Vod’s negative feedback on TECSHARE, dated 2019-09-09 and now (together with Lauda’s negative) supported by me via my counter-counter tag, states:


That is a serious accusation!  I immediately checked Vod’s reference link, which I will hereby quote in full because people seem to be ignoring its significance in the context of this thread (see post title):


Now, trust-system abuser TECSHARE, who dishonestly reached DT1 through “vote”-trading, has opened against me a hit-thread laced with subtextual panic that I may honestly and properly soon reach DT1.  (Insofar as I can tell, I am indeed eligible.)  TECSHARE’s basis for accusing me of trust-system abuse:  My support of Vod’s tag correctly identifying him as a trust-system abuser (among other good tags).

Wherefore:


The word “hypocrite” is hereby inadequate.  The English language needs a word specific to covering for one’s own crimes by accusing one’s accusers.

---

I have indeed observed that TECSHARE indeed has an interesting definition of the word “abuse”:  Busting abusers.


N.b. the pattern of accusing others of arbitrarily redefining or misconstruing words as he arbitrarily redefines or misconstrues words to the opposite of their actual meanings, to his advantage.  See my above remark about a needed neologism.  Is there a philologist in the house?


TECSHARE tends to present himself as if he were a spokesman for the oppressed, with typical pinko agitprop that portrays wrongdoers as mass-victims:


For an extra-special touch of some thing beyond hypocrisy, this TECSHARE quote is from a thread that I myself opened for the exact purpose of “pressuring yahoo6278 to stop supporting Yobit”—in which my OP, my follow-up post, and even the topic title all seem to nearly shout that if I were to have started mass-tagging Yobit advertisers while yahoo was running their campaign and wearing their signature, I myself would have tagged yahoo first as a matter of principle.  Perhaps someone forgot to wash my balls?

And this same principle is why I have told suchmoon to either ~Vod with ~nullius, or back off.  Lauda’s example of achow101 is also consistent with this principle.

I am not hiding behind Vod.  I can stand on my own feet; and indeed, at this point, I would independently stand on principle even if, hypothetically, Vod were less principled than he obviously is.  However, wise judgment requires first pursuing the biggest, toughest targets, as well as getting to the root of an alleged problem.  Arguendo, if my support of Vod’s tag is wrong, then Vod’s tag is wrong:  Start at the root of the problem before rattling your sabre at me.  Whereas I will not be cowed by the threat of exclusion—especially not when the same threat is not also made against a 5-digit UID with one of the highest trust weights, whose tag it is that I so happen to be supporting because it is right.

(The same argument also separately applies to my support of Lauda’s tag.  I am only picking on Vod because suchmoon includes him.  Sorry, Vod.)

Thank you for clarifying.

What about somebody who has malicious, dishonest motives other than simply outright stealing money?  For a concrete example, I have oft observed (including earlier on this thread!) that high-intelligence scum usually prefer becoming politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc. to being low-grade scammers or street criminals.

Many such people will execute perfectly correct trades with you—even for millions or billions of dollars.  Is it wrong for me to label some large, perhaps large majority subset of that group as untrustworthy and likely to harm people?

That is only a conceptual example, for the purpose of illustrating my point—though I must observe that in DT politics, TECSHARE’s general behaviour is what would be expected of a moderately shrewd low-grade political jobber.

Your premise of “excessive confidence and absolutism” is incorrect—as is your assumption that I do not correct myself when I err (as inevitably occurs sometimes in mortal humans).  You don’t know me very well, to rather understate the matter.  But the point is moot, for I am not wrong here.

[Substantive edit:  ...except in an embarrassing typographic error and inadequate proofreading in the topic title.  Err though I did, I do know how to spell “quelle”.  I hereby apologize to France.  See?  I correct myself.]

---

^^^ THIS.  The facile granting of positive trust shows the worst poor judgment short of actual malice.  That is no grand discovery on my part:  It merely ancient wisdom of the type once upon a time called “common sense”.  Any intelligent person over the age of 30 knows IRL to damn well distrust the judgment of people who trust others with foolish, childish ease.  And on the forum, ~ exists for exactly this purpose.

I find it interesting that, objectively applied, suchmoon’s proposed standard (which, pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding, is just that and no more!) will allow either positive or negative feedback based on a 0.00001 BTC trade—but will disallow any feedback at all based on such non-trading-related honest or dishonest behaviour as can have an extraordinary real impact, for good or for ill.

That aside, part of the deeper problem here is that the Reputation forum is dominated by those who are most vocal about trust decisions that they dislike.  Those mostly fall into two categories:  Principled people, and whiners who got smacked with well-deserved negative trust.  Now, which of those will complain about lightly-given positive feedback?  And which group is far more numerous?

---

Indeed.  TECSHARE will not hereby exercise even the slightest influence over my actions—not directly, and not indirectly.  However, given some unexpected help, he has inadvertently succeeded at wasting my time that I had allocated for important tasks.

---

I duly apologize if I misinterpreted you amidst a spirited debate.

As to the subject in itself, I do not care to argue it further.  My position is clear, and will not change.  If you choose to exclude me over that, then I will look to see if you consistently exclude others on the same basis as you state; and I will be very sorry that DT manipulator TECSHARE managed to troll you into helping assuage his fear of what will happen to poor, oppressed scammers and other wrongdoers if/when Nullius the Terrible gets into DT.

If that is a concise statement of your opinion, then please feel free to ~nullius—just be sure to ~ everybody else who issues any positive or negative feedback for any reason not meeting your extremely narrow standard.  Starting with all makers of the feedback that I was supporting.

Further discussion is unwarranted, when I have clearly stated the conditions for my removal of my “counter”:

---

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.  To the contrary.

Now please, let’s not insult each other’s intelligence with “I know you’re smarter than that” backhanded compliments.

Anything else I could say to your latest post would be a rehash of what I have already said.

So, you would make unavailable a useful and necessary tool for what I, and no doubt others, regard as one of the most important forums (together with its virtual sibling, Beginners & Help)?

I suggest that before you say such a thing, you should spend some time fighting anti-Bitcoin pseudo-technical FUD, technical scams such as brainwallets, and all-around bad advice.

The forum is not only for trading, you know.  I myself have never yet traded with the public here; although I may someday, I did not originally come here for the purpose of making money!  I came to the Bitcoin Forum founded by Satoshi, for the immediate purpose of engaging in technical discussions.


If your extremely narrow trading-forum trust feedback standard is harmful to the rest of the forum, I suggest that “that's a bad custom for the rest of the forum”-

What’s next?  Bringing back “Risked BTC amount”?  And/or limiting negative trust feedback to violations of a written contract?  Well, that is why we now have Type-3 flags.

---

Note re my “assertion” about Dev & Tech:  It is not a written rule.  Just one of those things that you will pick up if you post there regularly for at least a month or two, check the feedback on other regulars, and see what the smart people are doing.

---

Nobody is trying to push you into anything.

You are trying to push me into removing my support for several tags which include negative feedback left by somebody on your explicit inclusions list.  I am advising you to apply the same standards without bias:  Either ~ both of us, or neither of us.  To do otherwise would show poor judgment, at best.

Others here have defamed me as having “frivolous feedback”—which includes feedback left by a staff member who is one of the most highly-trusted, widely-included members of the forum, plus by other tech-forum regulars.  It has been pointed out to you that if you agree that that is “frivolous feedback”, then your tilde key will start to be quite busy if you uphold your own purported standards.  Nobody is trying to push you into anything.

I don’t plan on going the route of being pushed into removing feedback is correct according to my own judgment.  I will also not be pushed into letting you set a peremptory standard for trust feedback, and then force me to argue according to your exact demands.  If I choose to further spend my own time explaining feedback that is self-explanatory, I will not do so on those terms.

Please feel free to make your own independent decisions—as I will make mine, independently of you and everybody else.

So, thus far, suchmoon proposes (either explicitly or by unavoidable implication):


Who’s next?  How far will this go?  It is not exactly a winning argument, if you want to keep anybody with sound judgment in DT.

To be clear upfront:  Threats of ~nullius will have zero impact on my decision-making process.  I will not change my decisions to avoid exclusions, any more than I would change my decisions to scratch someone’s back for inclusions—both are equally corrupt.  I make my decisions independently.



That is a custom specific to the Development & Technology forum—only well-known to regulars there, and very well-known to regulars there, together with the use of the merit system to endorse technical correctness.  If you need to assess whether you should trust highly technical, jargon-filled posts about subjects that you are only learning, you look for merit and feedback from well-known experts.  Otherwise, you risk being misled by self-styled Internet pseudo-experts who make it up as they go along, on the basis of “if you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em”.  All too oft, those are the ones spouting FUD against Bitcoin and/or Lightning, and/or giving extremely poor security “advice” that they just made up on the spot to sound smart.

Moreover, you are misinterpreting the nature of the feedback.  It is not merely marking out smarts, but trustworthiness in applying those smarts.

For a real-world exampe to illustrate why:  The original creator of brainwallet.org undoubtedly had a high IQ, and a strong technical competence in Bitcoin.  He did it to fool people into making wallets that he could more easily crack, a concept later demonstrated by whitehat ryanc’s brainflayer (created to show people WHY YOU SHOULD NOT USE BRAINWALLETS).  Dev & Tech still sometimes suffers “security advice” from brainwallet advocates who are probably just itching to use brainflayer themselves.

When you see a brainwallet advocate tell you X, Y, and Z about technical topics you don’t understand, and you see nullius saying, “This is a wallet thief giving bad advice so that he can steal your money with an offline attack!”, how do you choose whose technical advice to trust?  Well, you hop over to my trust page, you see that a staff member/Core Dev marked me as trustworthy, and you DO NOT USE BRAINWALLETS!

There are also BCH advocates with technical skills, who sometimes make arguments that cannot be motivated by other than malice:  They know enough to damn well know that what they are saying is not correct!  The same principle applies.


I disagree, as stated above.

A hard-learned lesson gives an empirical example of why: alia, and theymos’ positive feedback for alia (screenshots of which still exist somewhere in the alia scam investigation megathread).

I am not blaming theymos for my own actions:  I am blaming my own foolishness in being insufficiently conservative in weighing positive feedback.  I was still green in handling the trust system, and relatively forum-naïve about all the things one can’t learn just by lurking without interaction.  Because it was a positive (not a neutral), and because of who it was from, I misread into it all kinds of things that theymos did not actually say in the feedback text.  That was admittedly poor judgment on my own part—but nevertheless, it shows how damaging erroneous positive feedback can be!


You contradict yourself.  You call my tech-related positive feedbacks “frivolous”, because they do not pertain to trades; but that is a local community consensus that evolved in the Dev & Tech forum.

Moreover, these things only “evolve” somehow:  They evolve when somebody uses the trust system to fill an actual need, and explains to others why this is wise and beneficial.

---

The foregoing was dashed off in haste, and is admittedly a bit inadequate for addressing the complex issues hereby raised; and I have perforce in haste ignored other posts raising other points.  I am only trying to cover the key points for now; I will be back later.

One other important point for now:


That is true, but not applicable to Dev & Tech positive feedback for trustworthy technical advice.

Many high-IQ people are dishonest, criminal-minded scum.  They usually become politicians, lawyers, bankers, brainwallet advocates, Bcashers...  I also would not underestimate Faketoshi’s IQ—though I would not overestimate it based on his diploma-mill act, either!  (It is actually difficult to judge his intelligence based on his writings, because I presume he may have help due to the types of agendas that dovetail with his.)

Low general intelligence indeed correlates with certain types of crimes, including garden-variety scams plus “street crime”.  +1 for science!

In the abstract, I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.  You will notice that I have never yet left a positive for anybody, ever.  (I have been intending one for Lauda; perhaps I may consider a few others after that.)  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.


Hello, you sound almost like me. :-)


Hey, I said, “No backsies!”  I despise this childish game of the counter to the counter to the counter.

Because it explicitly is a “counter”, I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise.  However, this will not stop the potential that now that I am examining TECSHARE, I may independently add my own negative feedback at some point; and such a thing would absolutely and unarguably stay put until either hell freezes over, or I mine a Bitcoin block on my Raspberry Pi.  Perhaps longer.


Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?  My feedback was a “counter” to their frivolous positive “counter” feedback.  It is negative, in support of Vod’s and Lauda’s negatives.  Moreover, will you ~Vod for the negative feedback that I am supporting?  I notice that you include Vod, and you are not demanding that he remove his eminently reasonable negative feedback that you are now counter-counter-countering.

(You already ~BayAreaCoins, so it is moot here.)

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly.  Thanks, Vod!  Lauda’s was less useful, but only because I had already figured out for myself most of what it said.

Vod’s tip on nutildah’s post leaves me shrugging at TECSHARE’s accusations against me.  A DT manipulator tries to manipulate others into ~nullius by accusing me of his own guilt of trust system abuse?  Quelle surprise.


The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise, such that people who read my technical posts should know whether I know whereof I speak, or I am just spouting Internet faux-expert techno-gibberish.

I myself have been saved numerous times by negatives and informational feedback discovered through the trust system.  The forum is a dangerous place, in a good way, because freedom is dangerous:  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions; and they need such reputational information available to them as is necessary for the exercise of wise judgment.  Aside, reputational systems are a major interest of mine; and I have had some thoughts on how to improve the trust system into a cypherpunks-style cryptographic, decentralized reputational system like a PGP WoT that actually works.

With so many scammers, trolls, sockpuppets, and other miscreants hereabouts, I would not feel comfortable even posting here without the trust system.  Before I apply significant merit to a post, I check the trust system.  Before I praise someone in public, I check the trust system.  It’s not perfect; and as you know (cough), I have nearly suffered disaster due to my own foolishly excessive reliance on a single positive trust feedback from a very trustworthy person.  Cf. what I said above about my conservatism in positive feedback:  A mistaken positive can be far more harmful than an erroneous negative!

---

(1) You, who game the trust system, accuse your accuser of your own wrongs?  That is exactly the type of dishonest behaviour that will earn a non-“counter” negative feedback from me—on grounds similar to Vod’s, but independently of him.  One which will stay permanently.

(2) Any evidence about “alts”, or are you descending to the level of a garden-variety whiner full of “conspiracy theories”?  I have been frequently accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi, and less-frequently accused of being about a half-dozen others.  Yawn.

Note:  I will not waste my time arguing with your nonsense, other than if you have substantial evidence on point (2).

So, you are of the opinion that the trust system should not be used to express distrust of the advertisement of acknowledged, undisputed scams!?

The remainder of this post is thus almost superfluous.  As I wrote already before I saw your later post, not all opinions are equally valid.  Next.

---

Trade disputes are often just that:  Disputes.  Whether in good faith or in bad faith, parties interpret their terms of contract differently, differently interpret the facts upon which their contract must be applied (even when they agree to the facts), argue over the law that applies to the contract and to the facts, etc.

In actual courtrooms, such a dispute can and oft does result in a judge writing a paper that is called an opinion to explain his judgment in legal terms.

In substantial effect, what you are arguing for is the abrogation of all standards, period.  For ultimately, reductio ad absurdum, everything in real-life human interactions is just a matter of opinion.

Not all opinions are equally valid.

---

I noticed.  And sane people do not waste time arguing with them (although they can be an interesting subject of sociological study).

---

Thanks.  I have also been intending to gather links to some of your older posts about the Yobit scam.  Anybody arguing for Yobit should be required to first address the maths as a threshold question.  That is not a matter of “opinion”, unless someone is of the opinion that the definition of the word “opinion” is arbitrary in the correct sense of the word “arbitrary”, not the arbitrary sense of TECSHARE’s opinion about the meaning of the word “arbitrary”. :-)

FYI, non sequitur is a fancy Latin phrase meaning, “it does not follow”.  And it still doesn’t.  Not even if you pull out a cutesy pop-movie GIF to insult my intelligence from your position of stupidity.


This is the analogy being clearly insinuated by Erdogan‘s (+0 / =0 / -5) post, which you, TECSHARE, are defending in a manner that proves stupidity and malice are indistinguishable:

   Mixer : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Therefore, advertising of a mixer is implied to be wrongful advertising somehow analogous to advertising a scam.  The analogy fails because relies on non sequitur which may be more obvious if I reformulate it per o_e_l_e_o’s suggestion:

   The Internet : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

...or:

   Money : Criminals :: Scam Site : Scam

Please be advised that if you desire further tutorials in analogies, fancy Latin phrases, and/or basic English reading comprehension and critical thinking, I will start billing you.  I accept payments in Bitcoin only.

---

With Erdogan?  You are the one who chose to step up and defend the transparent shill arguments of a bought/hacked account with a scam history.  A man is known by the company he keeps.  N.b., guilt by association is not a formal fallacy; and it is not at all fallacious here, just as ad hominem is not fallacious when asking “cui bono?” about a known bought/hacked scam account suddenly showing up to smear ChipMixer, an innocent party who is not involved in this thread.


In OP, JollyGood set forth very narrow (in my opinion, far too narrow) objective criteria for his tagging of users who are indisputably advertising a Ponzi scam.  You call that “arbitrary”?


Please request my English language tutoring rates if you want any counterargument or explanation, but for the following observation:

Your long-running crusade to lower the community’s standards of honesty is well-known to Reputation regulars, albeit perhaps not to many readers of these Yobit-related threads.  It shows generally poor judgment on your part; and your defence of a hacked/bought account’s attempt to drag ChipMixer into this is a new low even for you.

---

Your meaning is unclear:  Are you saying that the cold, hard maths that make Yobit’s advertised rates of return impossible are an “opinion”, or that it is only an “opinion” that the promise of impossible returns is a textbook, definitional scam?

My thanks to taikuri13 for the Russian translation of “Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon”.  It is an important message for all peoples and all languages, because:


OP has been edited to add a Translations section.  (Pre-edit archival snapshot.)

Спасибо, очень хорошо!

With apologies for my pidgin Russian, I am honoured to see this message brought to the Russian people in their beautiful language.  For:

Deleted posts:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5371/53717895.html
(Are you serious?  You “just envy”?)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5371/53718074.html
(Sickly serious, a known hacked/bought scammer account now up to more mischief!)

Congratulations, DarkStar_ and ChipMixer!

When people are parodying the logo of the brand that you have built, for better or for worse, it means that you have arrived.

People parody the Coca-Cola, Nike, and McDonald’s logos.  I never yet saw a Royal Crown Cola logo parody.  Second-raters and unknown nobodies do not get parodies—not from fans, and not from haters.

ChipMixer is undoubtedly the biggest success in the small world of Bitcoin Forum ad campaigns.

So, Chipmixer is being unjustifiably smeared in favour of Yobit by an account with negative trust feedback from nutildah, bL4nkcode, Lauda, ibminer (twice!), and yahoo62278.  (Sorry, yahoo:  You sleep with curs, you wake up with fleas.)

Why am I not surprised?

N.b. that it is apparently a stolen/sold/hacked account with many scam accusations; and it is a “Legendary” account that, prior to this post, had exactly one earned merit received earlier today, for a post that is now deleted.  TECSHARE just doubled this account’s earned merit.

---

Indeed, it is the reason why I am currently advertising ChipMixer for free, on principle!

---

Non sequitur.  You fail at analogies.  The proposition that some criminals may abuse a good service, just as criminals abuse the Internet itself (thanks, o_e_l_e_o), has no logical similarity to the proposition that a service actively cheating its own users is a scam.

(Plus what o_e_l_e_o said.)

A lightly edited quote from recent private communications about exemplars of the morality of resentment:


The foregoing is merely the application of a principle which grade-α philologist Nietzsche had laid when he wooed Truth’s virgin sister, Wisdom, in his previous book, Also sprach Zarathustra:



The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language.  A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot; and in the famous Beyond Good and Evil aphorism that later gave the starting point for his Zur Genealogie der Moral, Nietzsche discovered two separate moral dichotomies:

• The dichotomy between “good” and “bad” (“gut” and “schlecht”) in the sense of “noble” versus “despicable”; this, he termed the Master-Morality (Herren-Moral), which he exemplified in the self-glorifying pride of ancient aristocrats:  “...it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful.  ‘We truthful ones’ [‘Wir Wahrhaftigen’] the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.”  I observe that whereas the Homeric heroes may merrily invade Troy, seize its treasures and women, and burn it to the ground, they would never scam you.  Scamming would be despicable, schlecht, bad.  (Cf. Zur Genealogie der Moral, pp. 21–22.)
• The dichotomy between “good” and “evil” (“gut” and “böse”) in the sense of “sympathetic” versus “dangerous”, which he termed the Slave-Morality (Sklaven-Moral).  It is the morality of resentment by persons of inferior quality, by which they demand that those stronger than themselves must abandon their strength for humility.  In Bitcoin Forum terms, it is the morality of those who demand empathy for “please Sir give merits or my whole family will starve to death” types—or those who are so enraged about being denied “lucrative bounties” that they develop paranoid ideations about a “DT Chipmixer mafia”.

He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is “evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality (e.g., liberals and Christians).  In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility:  A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

In this and other ways, Nietzsche steps Beyond Good and Evil to reach “good and bad”.  Notwithstanding his amoralism, he actually embraces “Master-Morality” values which are not only far harsher than the moralities that he rejects, but also impossible to learn.  The “Master-Morality” is a morality that one is, and a self-glorification of what one is:  It is not an externally imposed rule, and cannot be taught by moralistic instruction in the manner of a Sunday-school teacher wagging a finger.

“Wir Wahrhaftigen” need neither commandments nor laws to tell us not to lie, cheat, and steal!  Either you are born with the instinct that underlies such traditions as seppuku—or you aren’t, and you need laws, gods, moralistic teachings, negative trust feedback, and the deterrent effect of punishment to scare you into some approximate semblence of honest behaviour.

Thus, unlike Bitcoin, Nietzsche is not for everybody.  Indeed, Nietzsche is for the few.

For those who may mistake Nietzsche’s amoralism as a license to commit crimes, the moralist Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment is an adequate warning.  Nietzsche is not for the likes of them, and neither is this topic—whereas Dostoyevsky is not for me!

Neither is Nietzsche for those may mistake his word as a revelation of prophecy; for Nietzsche was a freethinker:


Given that I am not a Nietzschean, and I hate my friend Nietzsche in the same sense that Nietzsche hated Schopenhauer, I have no wish to now write an extended discourse on Nietzsche.  At this time, I will thus retire to let others discuss, pursuant to the below-stated rules.

---

Local rules:  Any post that quotes the whole OP will be deleted.  I may also delete posts that are stupid, including (but not limited to) those that are stupid in the sense that the philologist amongst philosophers observed, “according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the safe man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme.  Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words ‘good’ and ‘stupid.’”  Also, in honour of “Wir Wahrhaftigen”, I will delete lies; and Vispilio and his cronies are prohibited from posting in this thread.

Please do not reply to any post which violates the above rules.

Whoops.  I suppose that people noticed he is untrustworthy!


Only -2?  Based on his behaviour, I suspect that Vispilio’s fall into the red abyss is just beginning.

Though, hmmm, does anybody care to take this up in Meta?

---

I intend replies to some of the interesting posts here; but it will must needs wait.  I will be back.  Have a good weekend, folks.