Good for you. As I already stated, you have already posted my PMs without my permission here violating my privacy repeatedly. Every step of this auction has been a failure. I don't trust you to have my transaction information. I have agreed to have you ship it to Minerjones so he can reship it to me at your expense. The ONLY way this would end in theft for you is if Minerjones were to defraud you at this point. Having my private information doesn't offer you any more protection, this is just you making unreasonable demands. You have given me no reason to trust you and every reason NOT to trust you. Minerjones makes more than your entire auction is worth in seconds. The implication that he would lie about receiving funds or would not ensure your payment is totally asinine. Honor your agreement, ship to Minerjones as you contractually agreed to. As I said before, this seems to me like you simply being dissatisfied with the final price, and finding any excuse to break the contract you formed so you can try again for more.

Sorry but I don't consent to turning this into a 4 party contract. I understand you are trying to help, but he shit his bed, he should sleep in it.

You want now the escrow to hold my money, the bar, and you want to be free to violate my privacy even more? You seem to be a big fan of technicalities, so lets look at the technicalities. No where in your auction did you post a requirement for the TXID to be disclosed to you to use escrow. I agreed to your other terms to ship to Minerjones, so you are arguing with yourself about nothing on that front. Are you going to honor your contractual agreement or are you instead going with this story that two of some of the most trusted members on this community are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud you of $100 of silver?

Now that I have agreed to his demands, of course needs to draw this out even longer by disappearing. I wouldn't trust you with a pack of saltine crackers.

I didn't bully you into anything. I made demands to protect myself, because you have demonstrated you are not to be trusted absolutely EVERY step of the way in this process start to finish. Nothing I asked for is unreasonable. I already stated if you are willing to pay Minerjones for the reshipping cost to get that bar to me, you can ship it to him with all the signature requirements you like if it makes you feel better. Is that not good enough now or do you have more demands to make of your customer? This is more like a hostage negotiation than a sales thread, and I am dumbfounded as to why you think any of this serves you. I am not "lording over" anything. I have demonstrated I can be trusted with funds over almost a decade. You have not. It is as simple as that. At least everyone knows to avoid you now at the very least. So will you be shipping to Minerjones, covering his cost to reship it to me, as you said you would?

Bully you? The only one bullying you is yourself ironically. You act like a small child, so I treat you like one. You demonstrate you can't be trusted, so I trust you with nothing. That is all there is to it. You said you would cover the costs, so if you cover the reshipping costs to get it to me from Minerjones, ship it to him. So are you going to honor our contract or not?

New, right... So what is your main account?

I don't know, maybe it was I thought I was dealing with a reasonable person that would serve his customers. If he wants to pay Minerjones to reship to me, he can ship to him. I have no reason to put up with this nonsense and have been more than reasonable. None of this excuses any of his other behavior violating my privacy and being some of the most shit customer service I have ever had.



MagicByt3, fix your quotes. I really don't want you speaking for me, and I am not cleaning up your mess just to argue with you pointlessly.

We aren't on eBay. Perhaps you should lurk a little bit longer before telling a guy who has been here for 8 years how things work here. He engaged in a contract with me. I insist he honors it. It is that simple. Frankly I think he was hoping for more money, and him being exceedingly difficult is his attempt at getting out of the agreement so he can try again for more. None of his behavior here makes me think he is above this.

I tried to give MagicByt3 one last chance to solve this privately, but clearly my, and every one else's breath is wasted on him. Let me summarize the situation.

1. MagicByt3 runs a shady auction which makes everyone doubt his integrity over 0.002 BTC
2. He then argues with everyone about it, says hes new, but wants to tell us all how auctions work
3. Because of his behavior I insist on escrow, and of course he again wants to tell us all how escrows work refusing to meet the terms of the buyer
4. He demands to pick the escrow, I tell him no and insist on an escrow of my choice
5. Accuses me of making threats to him that never happened.
6. He then posts my private messages without permission (I gave you permission to post PMs up to that date, not all future PMs forever more)
7. even more arguing

In summary, great job ending your reputation here, because now no one will touch you with a 400 foot pole after this little shit fit.


Just to clear some stuff up. I sent payment to Minerjones, and I asked for my TXID to be kept private. Expecting escrow to work like it does every other time I used escrow, I expected the seller to ship directly to me, as others have explained, shipping to Minerjones just wastes more time and money, and provides the seller absolutely no more protection than shipping directly to me. This guy clearly doesn't respect my privacy after posting a bunch of my PMs without permission, why should I trust him with my TXID? Either he trusts Minerjones or he doesn't. Him having a TXID doesn't offer him any more protection whatsoever if Minerjones is intent on defrauding him.

This is just more childish foot stomping because he couldn't have it his way. I asked for standard no signature post, which of course would include tracking. Requiring a signature is just more bullshit I do not want to deal with. This is just you being a child and stomping your feet demanding to dictate how it is. Let me tell you how it is. You have no future trading here, and it is all because you enjoy dictating to your customers how it is, more than you are concerned with serving your customers.

I am not releasing you from your contract with me. You agreed to sell the bar to me. Are you willfully violating our contractual agreement now?

Escrow has been arranged. Just waiting on delivery. Will update when it arrives. Thanks.

I made a new post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg53884804#msg53884804

I figured I would save you the time posting in this thread. Discuss.

I never advertised my account for sale. You did. I am very sorry you made such a stupid mistake exposing your willingness to allow this forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars, and then furthermore run around punishing people for exactly what you yourself were guilty of, but that is not my responsibility.

You posted your account for sale, proving factually in your own words your intent to allow the forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars. You then tried to cover it up by editing the post, also demonstrating you know you did something you shouldn't have. You have no way to prove your account wasn't sold, and this is significant evidence to suggest it was regardless of your protestations and refractory counter demands.

This would have been more than enough evidence to destroy anyone on the DT shitlist, but you get a pass because you are a full time ball washer of everyone who would be excluding you. You are a walking talking living example of trust system nepotism and selective enforcement allowing abuse.



Thanks for more proof of your intellectual dishonesty. No argument for your obsessive muck raking in a desperate search to find any morsel to impugn my character over, being forced to go back years to find examples, you are now resorting to defining people I didn't even put in the suggested inclusions list as "guild members". I guess that is the kind of thing you think qualifies for logic. You define what the guild is, then condemn me for what you defined it as. That doesn't sound anything at all like a straw man argument now does it?

The people you have in your inclusions I don't even have to go back months, I only need look back days and weeks. Shit some of your inclusions probably have abused the trust system within hours. Lets not focus on that though, you have proof I once ate a Payday bar back in 2014.

What a surprise, another thread upsetting the forum Stasi, another flood of reports of my posts, another excuse for Flyinghellfish and the reporting toadies to enforce their political bias get retribution. This forum is really degrading fast Theymos. Might be time for you to grow a spine and make some tough choices. The people you keep giving second, third, fourth, fifth, chances to are just saying fuck you I will do what I want because you refuse to impose repercussions on them.

Posted in: Coronavirus Outbreak




Posted in: Targeted Gangstalking Information Thread





Posted in: 2020 Democrats




Posted in: 2020 Democrats





Posted in: 2020 Democrats




Posted in: "Antifa Lunch Break"




Posted in: 2020 Democrats




Posted in: 2020 Democrats




Posted in: 2020 Democrats




As you can see they are all very much on topic, but of course very upsetting to certain people with leftist leanings, and the openly Communist FlyingHellfish is happy to oblige to silence speech that makes his preferred political party look bad.

It clearly does favor you. You were openly selling your account. For all we know you aren't actually Nutilduhh, and you have no way to prove the trade never happened. This also demonstrates you are willing to let this community be scammed for a few Satoshis. If it were me or anyone else the clown car has on their shit list, this would be the worst atrocity ever committed. You have tagged people for exactly the same. People have been excluded from the DT for doing nothing more than what you did here. Since you make a habit of being on your knees and washing the balls of the DT members, you get a pass. This system absolutely does favor you.



You have difficulty being intellectually honest. Again, rather than addressing my point that the net detriment is larger than the net gain, you attempt to shift the topic to your demands for proof of "signal noise". You aren't interested in a discussion, you are only interested in attempting to dictate the discussion and its topics without actually addressing anything I am presenting, instead choosing to only discuss the parts that you feel serve your argument in favor of drawing attention away from legitimate points I have made which you desperately want to distract from. In order for the status quo system to work, open discussion is required. Your actions prove why that system is a failure.





As for the rest of you digging through shits I took years ago to find peanuts, I find it hilarious you need to go years back in my activities to find something even remotely objectionable, meanwhile your left trust ratings are page after page after page of negative trust ratings spammed out with little to no research or due diligence. Many of the people on high levels of the DT have never even conducted any trade here, and have raised their own reputation doing nothing more than impugning the character of others.

Who is even checking that those accusations are accurate? If anyone complains they are summarily dismissed as a scammer bitching because they got their come comeuppance. Of course, that is not important, what is important is you found a peanut and a cashew in my turd from 5 years ago. Thank you, all of you for working your hardest to prove that anyone who is critical of the current system has a whole team of people digging through their activities looking for excuses to punish them so they can be dismissed under your punitive evidence free system of just us.

So now you are so desperate to find ways to attack me, you need to resort to guilt via tertiary association now? None of those people are in my inclusions. You don't give a fuck about this community, you only care to preserve the ability to play your chimp like shit slinging games. You are intentionally ignoring not only the actual wording of the op, but its intent in order to maintain the status quo you and your friends benefit from. Your intellectual dishonesty and obsession with impugning my character is quite transparent.

You should probably start with some simple stuff like the manufacturer, model number, prices, location you are shipping from...

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust. This is another example of the drooling gibbering excuses for arguments you people present in an attempt to confirm your bias rather than presenting a logical argument. It reminds me a lot about the accusations Nutilduhhh made of "manipulating the trust system" that other users used as a pretext to negative rate me over.

If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.



Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No, I don't think I will. I could, but all it is going to do is give the usual clowns fodder to argue over and distract from the point of this thread. It isn't hard to find examples. Furthermore, the very act of asking me to document what allowed a scam to happen is rather asinine on its face, and simply bait for you to try to get me to attempt to document things that by their very nature are not conclusively documented. All of this is just yet another sad attempt to avoid addressing my point yet again. Maybe if we slash a few more tires we will all end up safer.

You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. A bit weird, but ok.



If you don't like me advocating for your removal from the default trust list, maybe don't abuse your authority under it. Your years long pattern of abusing it are well documented in the quoted thread. I don't know how you find the time to post here frankly, I figured you would be busy trying to extort OGNasty into apologizing to you, for something you do regularly I might add. I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod.



I don't think the gun control analogy is useful honestly, as there are a lot of other factors here far beyond self defense vs "public safety".

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately as the trust system stands, it doesn't take into account these avenues of abuse very well. Since people can't be trusted to not abuse this system, and clearly are not willing to hold people accountable when they abuse it, then the system itself is broken and needs to be changed. Requiring a base standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws I think is the most efficient and realistic way to modify the system for the best results.



Now all you are doing is ignoring the point I made, yet again, and opting to repeat your point, as if that some how makes it less of a straw man argument. You aren't making a retort to my point, you are simply repeating your point, again, without addressing mine.

Once again, the people who are most likely to fall for the cons you think you might protect them from, are the same people that will in fact be robbed regardless of how many people you tag. No one said anything about the entire system being useless. This is just yet another straw man argument on your part. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences.

As far as your car analogy, it is not an honest one. You compare your position to putting on a seat belt vs not because some people drive recklessly. A more appropriate analogy would be people running around and slashing the tires of anyone they think is driving recklessly. Sure, maybe it might keep some reckless drivers off the road temporarily, but they can quickly just get new tires, and now we have to live in a culture where it is ok for people to run around slashing tires as long as they can make up some lofty pretext to justify it. What could go wrong there?

As usual, you are working overtime to confuse these legitimate arguments to serve your own goals. He is not making a negative rating over this now is he? Good job pretending as if you don't understand the argument though. Gold star.



The idea that you are protecting these people is an illusion. Also you will notice you didn't actually address my point, and instead opted to argue a totally different point. My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed. No amount of spamming tags is going to prevent this. There is no reason that neutral ratings can't be used for warnings that don't meet the standard of evidence. This insistence that negative ratings are needed is more of a compulsive need to serve the one rating so they feel like they had an impact than serving the user base by giving a warning. You are attempting to treat the symptoms, not the cause.

You, instead of addressing this point, make some lame straw man argument that we can't expect all newbies to be able to tell what is and is not a scam, therefore, you conclude, we must maintain the status quo. Your preferred status quo doesn't give them any tools either, it just makes them dependent on being told who they shouldn't trade with, giving them a false sense of security, and enabling blind trust in false accusations.

As I already explained several times, and a point you seem to be willfully ignoring at this point, is it is not a question if it works some times. It is a question of, is the minuscule benefit it might result in, worth the very obvious abuse and conflict that results from preserving such ambiguous standards? Clearly the answer is no, but I am sure you will think of another straw man to argue.