I would rather get through my situation while doing the least that could be perceived as retaliation on my part as I can.. Actions by me could easily be seen as personal bias, a conflict of interest, or petty retaliation..
For now I'll keep my faith in the greater community to do what is right..
Do you think this is a poor choice of action?

I do not think it is up to DT1 members alone, but also DT2, aspiring DT users, and basically everyone in the community that may be interested, are entitled to their opinions and trust list choices..
Exercising these choices is what will get you onto DT in the first place right?

I think retaliation is "tacky" and not the best first method of resolution..

Even if you have been wronged, retaliating with negative trust that is also wrong or unfounded, is also wrong..
2 wrongs don't make a right..

However I think "This user abuses the trust system" in retaliation to trust abuse, is probably correct..
But I still think it would be somewhat "tacky" if it is seen as retaliation..

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers, without the abused having to retaliate at all..
The centralization of merit as it relates to DT is what I think is disrupting this favorable outcome..


And clear trust abusers, and possibly those including clear trust abusers on their lists..

Well, I didn't expect this, but it lit my PM notifications up pretty good so here I am..

So far, other than mentioning it a couple times, I have basically chosen...
Because I think..
Which may be coming true..
I haven't really dug to prepare references much yet but I think I could make it clear that Lauda has a long history of attacking me over my opinions going back a long time..
I think this one of many instances of Lauda attacking, in this case for supporting freedom of speech, threatening to flag me, and I called their bluff on it, is what really pissed Lauda off this time..

Out of that came this pretty interesting quote..
Which I find abhorrent..

I agree that I am a Cunt in the eyes of some as you suggest..

To those authoritarians who hope to shut down freedom of speech, who engage in hypocritical sketchy actions, who try to twist the truth, who abuse the trust system in attempt to silence users like me, I hope I am a HUGE "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" just as you describe..

If my postings in support of maintaining libertarian culture and high standards for DT, who I believe should be good role models for the masses to look up to, is a "pain" or damaging to anyone, good..


In the case of the reference in my negative trust from Lauda I was posting about this inconsistency..


First off I don't think it is correct to "force"..
Secondly, if you yourself think it is a scam, why would you attempt to facilitate their advertisement in any way? Escrow or not..
mosprognoz seems misguided here to me..

It seems me mentioning this made me a "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" to Lauda, and they abusively negative trusted me for pointing it out..

So here we are..



Edit: BTW I did not buy this account, I haven't worn a paid signature in probably years, I have been DT2 at all times that I know of since the new implementation of the trust system, I am now on DT1 and have never abused these positions, and I have been trusted with over $2,000 worth of BTC in a single trade and did not scam.. (I know it's not really that much)

So if you think I am untrustworthy I'd like to know your definition of "untrustworthy"..

Those values that this forum and Bitcoin were founded on are nothing but a ghost of their former selves here now..  

As a matter of fact if you frequently speak up for them then you are a "virtue signaler" and may be attacked..

This thread? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0
I didn't even post in that thread..


Did you not take the position of escrow for them?



When Cryptsy was crashing and screwed us all many of us, including me, came here as Bitcointalk noobs and at first were accused of just trolling/fudding Cryptsy..
At one point in time I was that noob coming here because I was being fucked by an exchange.. So it does happen..

I agree that OG not discussing this with theymos was a mistake on OG's part, but I doubt it was done out of malice..
I think he could have casually claimed airdrops from all of his keys, not skipping this key, and didn't really think anything of it, but should have consulted theymos about it..

This situation occurred mostly because their was little to no foresight into this evolutionary step of cryptocurrency where fork coins and airdrops exploded out of the middle of nowhere.. With the ever changing world of crypto situations like this are likely to even come up again in the future as things change, especially in relation to long term contracts..

It is a slip up but it is being over exploited IMO..

FTFY..
I was just attacked with Red trust by Lauda partially in reference to my postings in this thread.. I deserve a negative rating for speaking my mind and exploring contrary points of logic? I don't think so..
Do you want a diversity of ideas or an echo chamber?

Same here, but see what happens?


As of an hour or so ago last I checked OGNasty is still on theymos's trust list so I don't think this whole thing is as big of a deal as many are trying to make it out to be, or I imagine he would have been removed/excluded..

This is incorrect..

You should never "force" anyone to escrow.. They rightfully can choose not to escrow..

If you look here in the Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns [Last update: 01-Dec-2019] thread you will find that roughly half of the current Bitcoin paying signature add campaigns are not escrowed..

You very well should recommend escrow or warn participants that their is no escrow, but you don't "force" escrow..

If they are a scam then escrow is the least of your worries because then you red tag every participant for advertising scams.. Which is done ALL THE TIME..
And, I'm not sure a reputable escrow would escrow a signature campaign for a scam..
Would you escrow a signature campaign for a ponzi?
 


That has come to my attention and I have been thinking about it so thank you for bringing that up for me..

My "legendary account" and greater identity are in no way "ruined" by Lauda's comment..
If it diminishes me in any way it would only be to those who are ignorant..

In fact, it does Lauda more harm than me.. Or will do..
If you are in the know around here, when you see it, you will immediately realize that it is abuse of default trust, and basically just nonsense..

This will make Lauda look very bad for doing it, to anyone who's opinion I care about..
If you think it is right, you may want to think about it again..

I may mount a full defense if I have to, but it is so blatant that I'm thinking, I might not even have to mount a full defense myself..

Go ahead and get some talk going on about it before Lauda has a chance to rethink their decision here to save face..


I think @Lauda the sooner you remove it, the better it will be for you, before I, or anyone else, takes a stand against it..

Also interesting..
I was thinking a few posts ago how crypto is still a new frontier where contracts can become obsolete due to the changing technology..
We are all concerned with forks now but it wasn't even really though of when the contract was made..



Forks require you to move the BTC befor you claim them because claiming them can compromise your private key and they can take everything..
Airdrops you can just sign a message, doesn't risk the keys..

I hope he claimed everything possible and dumped hard on them all..
I hope he made a million bazillion BTCs..

Their is conflict of interest in your opinion of their scamminess now that you are in business with them..
I'm still trying to decide if it is a "scam" that should not be advertised, or not, and now your opinion on the matter is possibly biased because you jumped in bed with them..
mosprognoz seems to still think it's a scam..

I was mostly interested by the "forced" part TBH is why I ended up making the post..

Yes, but he couldn't exactly engage in fractional reserve banking, or gamble/invest with those funds, because I think the contract stated that the coins were to remain in the specific escrow address, not to be moved around and such..

But signing a BTC signed message from the address did not breach that contract..

Another way to look at it, if OG was claiming airdrops from all of his keys, why skip that key?


It happens..
Many accounts have fees for the use of them..
Negative interest rates happen sometimes too..
Escrow agents are not free..

Well yes, that would be a breach of contract..

An interesting question is, while OG held the coins, did the forum own those coins, or just owned a contract?
I'm not sure.. What do you think?

I often look at it as, if you don't own the keys, all you own is a contract..

Not only did he give the BCH but also gave ALL of the other "major" forks worth much of anything at all.. Very admirably..

Because he is nice..

And how did that go? Who ended up with the BCH value eventually?
Can you refresh my memory on that?



All I see is more witch hunt for OG going on here..

Better get to digging into all of those addresses you can link to OG to find something to complain about..

Forum contract, HIS coins..
You own a contract with that escrow or exchange you deposit to, they (the keyholder) own the coins..

He claimed them from HIS keys.. HIS keys..
It possibly would have been a nice thing for him to offer this claimed value to theymos, but I do not think it is or was a requirement to do so..
I don't know if it was a requirement for him to hand over ANY forks or anything claimed from HIS keys in order to abide by the contract, which was for the return of BTC only, but it is awful nice of him to have done so, because he is a good guy and it's the right thing to do..

He owned the keys period, so even giving the BTC back is nothing more than a testament to his morality and trustworthiness, because when those Bitcoins were on HIS keys, the Bitcoin code says he owned them too.. Bitcoin doesn't give one shit about anything you write, be it a joke or a contract, unless you fork/insert it into the Bitcoin code itself, he who owns the keys owns the contents..

We preach all the time about owning your own keys guys, lol..


I don't think that matters because the keys are his and technically so were all the BTC in the keys at the time according to the code..


I wouldn't consider it shady at all..
I consider it if you cared about it you should have owned your own keys or atleast had an agreement with the keyholder on the topic of forks/airdrops, as is usually how it goes..

Why should they NOT claim anything they can?
It's just nice of them to give it to you if they do, if it wasn't stipulated in any contract..


Only if theymos asks for them..


He returned the huge amount of BTC and now all the "major" forks..
His reputation is only getting better, lol..

Right, but the keys are his property..
You can't claim an airdrop with a screenshot of your balance in a 3rd party wallet/exchange either, or by showing an escrow contract..


Well, is the local systems admin the owner of the keys or just contracted to manipulate the keys owned by the company?
I would think the keys would be owned by the company, and an employee doing anything with the keys outside of their job expectation would be unethical up to the point of stealing the same as if they were to take everything off of the company's keys..

I don't ask theymos for consent on what I do with my keys either..

But did he have to hand over the BCH and other "major" forks in order to fulfill the contract, or was he just a good guy for doing so?

Yes I would consider this a "waste" of an opportunity to..

1. Dump on shitcoins..
2. Increase holdings of BTC by dumping shitcoins for BTC..
3. Increase the general value of BTC by dumping on shitcoins, taking that value out of the shitcoin and putting it back into BTC..

From the perspective of a self admitted Bitcoin supremacist (me), relentlessly dumping on any airdrops and forks is good for Bitcoin..


The question of if the topic of airdrops was discussed between OG and theymos is a question.. I wonder if their has been any mention of this subject between them at all..

If OG simply had to sign a BTC message from HIS keys it is debatable if the airdrop value should be his or not anyway, because they are OG's keys..
The forum's BTC on OG's keys is the forum's bitcoin, but the keys themselves are the property of OG and not theymos or the forum..

Understanding this, I think it could be debated that if not stated otherwise in any contract all forks and airdrops are the property of the key owner period, and therefore ANY value from forks or airdrops given to the escrow customer along with the BTC could be considered nothing more than a good deed, even as far as a donation..

At what point is an escrow responsible to claim all forks and airdrops for whoever they are holding coin for?
I think many escrows, exchanges, etc. now have disclaimers about this as in "I will not be held responsible for getting your forks/airdrops for you. I may, but may not." now that forks and airdrops are common, but back when the escrow contract for the forum funds was made I believe was before them to be common or of any concern..

Is an exchange a scam if they claim airdrops on their keys that are full of customer funds and not disperse these claimed values to the customer?

I think this is an interesting philosophical question of who has the right to these sorts of miscellaneous fork/airdrop values based on who owns the keys or what is contracted with the contents of the keys..

Ummm...
All the Bitcoins a while ago and just now all of the "major" fork coins..
As in the title of this thread..


"anything related to the escrow" would include airdrops.. Guy..

If airdrops have not been claimed on forum funds it would just be a waste..

You forced them did you?
I'm not sure what to think about "forcing" them to escrow anything.. Escrow is an option and not something that should be "forced" I think..  



How convenient.. Surely it will be 100% safe now...


It is suddenly OK to advertise scams as long as they are using escrow?


So you would have tagged participants if they didn't escrow? Or, you won't tag if they do use escrow?
WTF does them escrowing campaign funds have anything to do with it being a scam or not?

Are you some sort of authority who can "force" them to escrow and give them the "go ahead" to advertise a scam?


Well no shit bounty hunters are eager to make some scratch by spamming advertising no matter if it a scam they are shilling or not.. They/many don't care as long as they can get their piece of the action..


So, does this set the precedent that DT is going to allow the advertisement of scams as long as they escrow their advertisement funds?
All these poor bounty hunters should be able to make some coin by advertising scams and ponzis as long as it is escrowed for the sake of protecting these poor bounty hunters from the scammers that they are advertising for?



This could be interpreted as facilitating a scam or at the very least now a conflict of interest..



Hmm....

Oops, posted https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205331.msg53242039#msg53242039 in the wrong thread(this thread), but very related..
Can't delete..
Might as well quote it..