I asked polynesia via pm for extension of 4 days.
loan amount 0.05 with interest 20% changed to 25% interest.
Accepted. I think it is pretty clear that you were intending on repaying the loan with the proceeds from one of your account sales, however no sales appears to have materialized. Have you considered negotiating with polynesia to see if he is willing to accept one (or more) of your accounts as payment for your loan? |
|
|
|
there could be more information about loosing possibility on dice sites
What more information do you want? They tell you that you have a 49.5% chance of doubling your money. That should be enough for you to see that that's a 50.5% chance of you losing... Since 49.5% is smaller than 50.5%, you're more likely to lose than to win. Only a little more likely, but more likely. That's why the dice sites usually win in the end, because of that small difference. HYIP programs on the other hand almost always tell you that your profit is guaranteed, when in fact it isn't at all, and your expected profit is negative. The amount that dice sites will win over the long run is n% of the amount bet with n being the house edge. If the dice sites has enough players all betting close to similar amounts then their profit will not deviate very much from n%. Players will sometimes have some level of variance which will allow them to have better then expected luck and win |
|
|
|
-snip-
My point is, that if someone has a reputation of accurately outing scammers then the scammer will not bother to ask for proof because he knows it can be provided. As what happened in this case, if proof is requested then it can be provided (it was quickly provided when asked for by the OP).
Also not all deals are done openly via threads. It is not uncommon for a deal to be done entirely via PM when one person sees a post indicating that they have something for sale/want to buy something (for example person B posting on person A's thread offering to buy a widget, then person C can PM person B to try to work out a deal if A and B cannot reach a deal.
I think we just have to agree to disagree here. I value your input because it is well researched not because it comes from a certain account. Maybe I am the minority here that does not make the standards less important. If it is like you say that building a reputation to leave an accurate rating is enough than it is exactly like the long con with trades. If any dispute will just be seen as a scammer causing drama and no evidence is requested or vetted a position on DT can easily be exploited. Well evidence will be provided once it is requested from the person who receives the negative feedback (or anyone else who questions it). When someone is an alt of a scammer then they know they are an alt, although they likely think they did a good job of covering up this fact. When KoS opened this thread he knew that he was KoS, he was bluffing in saying that I did not have any evidence. Ironically, it was because I was trolled by him in my 'use escrow' thread in currency exchange that I received a tip via PM with evidence to support that the OP is KoS, and it checked out. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed.
The same arguement could be applied to positive trust received. Just because you have been trustworthy in the past does not make you trustworthy now. Its the DT equivalent of the long con. Well people that have large amounts of trust often do not need to use escrow and others are willing to send first without hesitation. A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.
Its not in a sense that you lock someone up, but it is in a sense that you can make it very difficult for someone to trade with others here. Its very close to a fine. This is esp. true for older accounts. A newbie account is quickly replaced, an established (as in high rank) account is not. maybe. However overall the decision to leave feedback is based on your judgement. Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.
Yes. Hiding evidence of their scams means that you undermine the trust system and over time rending it useless. Any scammer can get enough information about how to hide their tracks without you revealing their idiocity. If the trust in the current system is destroyed it is useless and can not easily be replaced. I disagree. If you have a reputation of successfully outing scams then others will eventually stop looking at the evidence and taking your word. I see little reason to create a thread few people will bother to read when the rating is taken on its face. If a conclusion is disputed then evidence can be provided to support such conclusion. -snip-
I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.
Next step will be mixers if it turns out bitstamp rats them out for a court order. Dark wallet. Anonymous focused alt coins. There are plenty options. Increasing the workload for scammers is a good thing. It would create more work for scammers but it would also make detection more difficult, potentially to the point where it is not possible. -snip-
I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others
No asking for evidence is the only way to defend yourself. It is impossible to proof that you did not do something. It is however possible to show error in your chain of evidence. This assumes that the accused thinks it makes sense to defend themselves. If someone is called out as a scammer, and knows they scammed then they might not even bother trying to defend themselves. Obviously we sometimes get people like the OP who know they are guilty and want to create a bunch of drama anyway.
My point is, that if someone has a reputation of accurately outing scammers then the scammer will not bother to ask for proof because he knows it can be provided. As what happened in this case, if proof is requested then it can be provided (it was quickly provided when asked for by the OP). Also not all deals are done openly via threads. It is not uncommon for a deal to be done entirely via PM when one person sees a post indicating that they have something for sale/want to buy something (for example person B posting on person A's thread offering to buy a widget, then person C can PM person B to try to work out a deal if A and B cannot reach a deal. |
|
|
|
When you are using the NXT asset exchange, you are technically buying a debt obligation of the issuer whose value is backed by the underlying asset. If the issuer were to decide not to honor their obligations then there would be little that could be done. Granted some of the issuers do take some precautions to prevent one person from controlling large amounts of funds (multisig for example), but this is not 100% foolproof.
Generally speaking you can get a number of free trades with a brokerage if you have sufficient assets held at the bank and there are companies like sharebuilder that allow you to buy stock for only $4 in commissions This is true. There have been a few example of failed assets on the NXT AE (e.g. ach and ReserveShare) where the asset issuers either suddenly disappeared or failed to issue dividends and then disappeared sometime later. There have been steps taken to mitigate the risk of scammy assets on the NXT AE, however. For example, NXTInspect is one such service which aims to audit assets on the AE by looking at their business plans. Unfortunately, it doesn't completely eliminate the risk of scam assets. Even if business plans are sound, there is nothing to stop someone from simply planning and executing a Lon con when dealing with issuing assets. The concept of using some kind of asset exchange is that you are trusting a third party with your assets which is not what Bitcoin is about. Yes, that's why I said that it doesn't completely eliminate the risk of scam assets. In fact, eliminating that risk is impossible - reduced, sure, but not eliminated entirely. The same also goes for regulated stock markets in the real world too. For any type of asset exchange, there must always be trust between the asset issuer and the buyer. Colored coins representing shares in a company are only as legitimate as the person who is issuing it. By allowing everyone to easily create tradeable digital tokens representing any kind of asset, colored coins make trading accessible to everyone. Bitcoin was designed to remove the middleman (i.e. the bank) in financial transactions. Colored coins enable the ability to securely trade and verify assets issued from a trusted issuer without the middleman (i.e. the broker). The possibility that the asset issuer might choose to scam is something that is inherent to the trading markets and is not a problem that colored coins were designed to solve. I think colored coins are just replacing one middle man with another. The status quo is that people trust their money with a broker. Your money is protected by the fact that the broker is highly regulated, the fact that the broker must keep customer funds segregated from company funds as well as SPIC insurance. An issuer of a colored coin on the other hand only has his reputation, which is really probably not that valuable when compared to a broker. Plus you have the fact that the identities of an issuer of a colored coin are likely to be unknown increase the risks that they will eventually run away with customer money. With bitcoin, you control your money when you control your private keys. With colored coins, the issuer is going to control your money |
|
|
|
I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example). This sounds like we are some sort of shadow tribunal. If there is evidence it should be presented. If it helps scammers to improve their skills in avoding detection thats the pill we have to swallow. There are certainly exceptions that are acceptable, the newbie asking for loan w/o collateral, the obviously carded gift cards, the ToS violation of MS keys. They have been discussed at length and there has been some sort of consensus among the commuity that these ratings are justified or at least the reasoning behind them can easily be understood. That at least is my impression judging by the threads that pop up in meta. I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed. A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future. Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams. Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless. [/quote]The example did not have additional drama in that specific thread, however I believe there was additional drama in other threads after that post (he had deleted his posts so there is nothing to point to specifically. I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected. I am very impressed by the work you do and I value it, but if you dont make your findings public it results in the view people have of you now. If you have something extra, keep it for later if you want, but there should be a minimum to hold you accountable. Evidence was presented on replies 2 and 3 of this thread (xeter and I both posted the same evidence, and I posted it shortly after he did, so I deleted the post to avoid posting essentially the exact same thing). The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions. It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network) The title and thread are very clear in my opinion. There is no reason to insult your intelligence here. "Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL
-snip-
where is any evidence i am this scammer or whoever this kos guy is?? there is no proof, i troll sometimes but i am no scammer!
-snip-
I demand that quickseller remove his rating or be removed from the default trust list. He is mad I called him unethical and has retailiated into following suit of other scammer's accusations in retaliation and calling me a scammer when not one piece of evidence has been provided
His lack of providing evidence with his rating and ruining someone shows how immature he is. he should not be on this default trust list.
I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others |
|
|
|
IMO the only reason they removed him in the first place is because they had just removed me from the default trust list for basically the same situation and they didn't want to look like even bigger hypocrites. This is why they are letting him back on because it was just a show to make it look like that actually enforce the rules for everyone.
TheButterZone also changed his negative rating to a neutral. From what I can see, it appears that you still have a negative rating on armis. TBZ also does not have quite the obsession of being included in default trust and has carried on about his business within the forum I never asked to be on the default trust list, not once. I harp on the subject because the rules are unwritten and selectively enforced. It is a corrupt system. I don't want to be on it, I want it to end. I left my negative rating because I was told over and over again that trust ratings are not moderated, yet Theymos and other staff members had no problem coercing me into changing my rating by personally seeing to it that I was not only removed from the default trust, but then a new feature was added, so that I could be excluded from it 2x so that others on the default trust list could not re-add me. That does not sound like an unmoderated trust system, this is a trust dictatorship where Theymos and only Theymos chose who stays and who goes. Furthermore they can't be bothered to post rules, or even uniformly enforce their unwritten rules. Armis was the perpetrator, and Theymos was happy to have an excuse to get personally involved and make sure I was removed and then excluded for the unforgivable crime of not following his orders to change my rating. It sounds like to me that theymos simply doesn't want ratings that are obviously outright inaccurate, and based on a personal dispute, and have zero to do with trust. Sure the trust system is not moderated, but that does not mean that others want to rely on trust ratings given by someone who leaves ratings that are regarding a personal dispute |
|
|
|
It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)
Proof of what? Proof that he is another user? How exactly does one prove that? Oh that's right by Badbear claiming he has some magic formula that says 2 usernames are the same person, but he can't share the information because it is a matter of forum national security. That seems like a worthwhile request.  Proof that he is an alt of KoS. There are plenty of ways that you can prove that an account is an alt of another person, the most solid way is to use blockchain evidence, however I think xeter did a pretty good job in this post. BadBear obviously has access to additional information that is not public (eg IP addresses, browser fingerprinting), however if he were to reveal his exact methods then scammers could use that information to avoid detection. Can you give any examples of BadBear being incorrect about alt accounts? P.S. Quickseller the fact that you are here arguing for yourself using your alt says volumes about you.
I don't think I am arguing for myself, and it is a well known fact that ACCTseller=quickseller, therefore posting from this account does not amount to shilling |
|
|
|
IMO the only reason they removed him in the first place is because they had just removed me from the default trust list for basically the same situation and they didn't want to look like even bigger hypocrites. This is why they are letting him back on because it was just a show to make it look like that actually enforce the rules for everyone.
TheButterZone also changed his negative rating to a neutral. From what I can see, it appears that you still have a negative rating on armis. TBZ also does not have quite the obsession of being included in default trust and has carried on about his business within the forum |
|
|
|
-snip-
It is escalating.
It certainly is. It would certainly help if the proofs would be collected in a post (e.g. in scam accu) and refered to in the rating. If evidence is strong enough this would also remove most of the bickering and drama. It would also help if those accused would not hijack several other threads in an attempt to make them look an even bigger fool. If a scam accusation was opened every time quickseller or tomatocage left negative trust for someone then we would need a separate sub for each of them. I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example). The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions. It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network) |
|
|
|
|
I am sorry, but what kind of a stupid question is this? Have you seen the trust rating of TF? His rating in on par with that of KoS and he has a VIP account.
I also doubt that you have 10 BTC
|
|
|
|
I lent to him late last year and he used the same address. He repaid the loan early. I think it is safe to say the OP is legit IMO |
|
|
|
When you are using the NXT asset exchange, you are technically buying a debt obligation of the issuer whose value is backed by the underlying asset. If the issuer were to decide not to honor their obligations then there would be little that could be done. Granted some of the issuers do take some precautions to prevent one person from controlling large amounts of funds (multisig for example), but this is not 100% foolproof.
Generally speaking you can get a number of free trades with a brokerage if you have sufficient assets held at the bank and there are companies like sharebuilder that allow you to buy stock for only $4 in commissions This is true. There have been a few example of failed assets on the NXT AE (e.g. ach and ReserveShare) where the asset issuers either suddenly disappeared or failed to issue dividends and then disappeared sometime later. There have been steps taken to mitigate the risk of scammy assets on the NXT AE, however. For example, NXTInspect is one such service which aims to audit assets on the AE by looking at their business plans. Unfortunately, it doesn't completely eliminate the risk of scam assets. Even if business plans are sound, there is nothing to stop someone from simply planning and executing a Lon con when dealing with issuing assets. The concept of using some kind of asset exchange is that you are trusting a third party with your assets which is not what Bitcoin is about. |
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if you would consider this to be "recently" however I used it back in November to sell a few BTC. The process of signing up is easy, first you need to verify your phone number with (IIRC) a verification code that you receive via text message on your phone then you need to scan your drivers license or passport so they can verify your identity and match it against your picture whenever you use their ATM (at one point they take your picture and select a PIN, however IDR at which point this happens).
Whenever you use their ATM's after you register, you will need to receive enter a code you receive via text message and enter your PIN in order to "login" to your account. Once you are logged in, you are given the option to either deposit BTC to your robocoin wallet (it is really an account however they call it a wallet), withdraw from your robocoin wallet, buy BTC with cash, and sell BTC for cash. You need to have three confirmations before your account/wallet is credited, and you can't send BTC to your wallet until you create an account in person, so the first time you want to sell BTC for cash you will need to wait around for a little while, after the first time you use their ATM's you can send BTC to your robocoin account before you arrive so you can sell it right away for cash.
|
|
|
|
|
A large percentage of Bitcoin users, and people interested in bitcoin value their ability to stay relatively anon, and by definition a social network will associate your identity with your account. This would make it unlikely that a lot of people involved in bitcoin would be interested in joining. Created a bitcoin social network would also not do anything to expand the number of people who own and use bitcoin.
As is the case with other social media sites, it would be easy to create accounts associated with fake identities, which although it would somewhat counter the above point, it would also make it so it would be easier to scam because people would be more comfortable with what they think is someone's real identity when in fact it is not. Where there is bitcoin, there is bound to be a lot of commerce for what is hopefully obvious reasons.
Lastly there is the issue that most/all social media sites already have groups (and similar) that are dedicated to bitcoin so creating a social media site specifically for bitcoin would really not accomplish very much
|
|
|
|
When you are using the NXT asset exchange, you are technically buying a debt obligation of the issuer whose value is backed by the underlying asset. If the issuer were to decide not to honor their obligations then there would be little that could be done. Granted some of the issuers do take some precautions to prevent one person from controlling large amounts of funds (multisig for example), but this is not 100% foolproof.
Generally speaking you can get a number of free trades with a brokerage if you have sufficient assets held at the bank and there are companies like sharebuilder that allow you to buy stock for only $4 in commissions |
|
|
|
-snip-
I agree this is a terrible idea. By the way the now centralized TBF would likely become a MSB under US law and be subject to MSB regulations. There is a clear lesson here from what recently happened to Ripple.
Now back to the thread topic. Increasing the 1MB blocksize limit is an absolute must for Bitcoin.
I agree that we need bigger blocks, but just increasing the limit to 20 MB will just push the problem into the future and not solve it. Eventually we will have a "20 MB is too small for a block" problem and the same discussions starts all over again. We also might run into the problem sooner than we expect, because bitcoin is not used uniformly through out the day. There are times with more TX and times with less TX, which is only natural as there are times when people sleep and time when they move their coins around. Thus "30% full on average" might actually be 80% full durring "prime time". IMHO the blocksize limit and the propagation speed are closely linked. As long as miners have a strong incentive to miner small blocks due to higher orphaned rate for big blocks a raised limit alone might not solve the issue at hand. Well kicking the "can down the road" is better then doing nothing. I also think that there should be some level of anti-spam protections in place for found blocks to prevent spam like transactions from being included in blocks (or at least too many of them). I would also argue that there should be an increase in the number of off-chain transactions (this should primarily be for micro-transactions), as there are a number of legit reasons as to why people should trust third parties to process their transactions (primary that they already do) |
|
|
|
From what I have seen recently low level senior accounts are not selling very well, or for very much. There is one person who is even selling their senior account for only .2 BTC. I don't think your account is going to work as collateral for a loan this large. Why don't you send .05 to a trusted escrow, then I will send .25 to the same escrow and the escrow can buy whatever altcoin you want to buy, then the escrow can sell the altcoin when it comes due and you get to keep whatever profit from the increase in value the altcoin has? Minus interest of course I would be more than happy to do this if I had .05 in my possession. Sort of why I was looking for a loan until payday this Friday. How much interest are you willing to offer? |
|
|
|
From what I have seen recently low level senior accounts are not selling very well, or for very much. There is one person who is even selling their senior account for only .2 BTC. I don't think your account is going to work as collateral for a loan this large. Why don't you send .05 to a trusted escrow, then I will send .25 to the same escrow and the escrow can buy whatever altcoin you want to buy, then the escrow can sell the altcoin when it comes due and you get to keep whatever profit from the increase in value the altcoin has? Minus interest of course |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin needs more radical development. This block adjustment needs to be done during the next radical update.
Here's an idea. Take 1% of each block reward and send it to an address controlled by the Bitcoin Foundation. This would provide revenue for development, branding, lobbying, etc. Alternatively, you can send them a % of the transaction fees. Call it a network fee.. whatever.
I'm not saying this is a good idea, but we need change. They say if it's broken don't fix it, but bitcoin is broken.
I think this is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all this would centralize Bitcoin as the one entity (TBF) would be receiving all of the funding for Bitcoin development and most of the stakeholders in the Bitcoin world would likely be left out. Secondly, TFB has a very bad track record, has a history of poor transparency and probably more people then not would prefer TBF to be completely dismantled. And probably most importantly, the best people to finance the development of Bitcoin would be businesses and people who have a financial interest in seeing bitcoin succeed over the long run - examples of this group would be companies like Bitpay, mining manufacturers, and companies that do large amounts of business denominated in bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
