IMO someone is trying to make the OP look bad and ruin his reputation.

The merit abuse is just too obvious for me to believe that someone was actually trying to give merit to themselves. Plus the fact that a thread about receiving the merit was immediately opened, presumably trying to bring attention to the *very* obvious merit abuse.

You have 50k "members" (of what exactly?) in an "exchange" that has not started trading?

Sounds unlikely.

Lol, I can agree to that. I would say this should apply to all merit sources although I would not make that a condition of agreeing to this.

You are wrong. The reason we have the merit system is because a certain group of people were leaving negative trust for what they claimed to be poor posts, and the resulting outcry.

I am myself suspicious of people who try to hide their history....perhaps they have something to hide

I saw the post but you didn’t answer either of my questions.

I don’t understand why he doesn’t give himself additional time to repay the loans he takes out when he ‘applies’ for his loans. He clearly is having trouble obtaining money to repay on a timely basis and should give himself a cushion in coming up with his money so his lenders are not consistently being paid after when they expect to receive their money.

How exactly are you aware of the merit system hours after joining the forum?

Are you associated with the person who sent you merit?   

That was a paid ad for dlive.tv. He said in the beginning of the video that he is "partnering up" with dlive, which is one way to disclose an advertising relationship with an entity you are promoting that promoters must do under FTC guidelines. 

dlive also has rules that govern the content of videos, and the only way these types of rules can be enforced is via centralization.

There are also some advantages to having centralized social media platforms, as people tend to not to want to see NSFW topics unless they are specifically seeking out these topics, and people also tend to like a certain set of rules/standards, even if those enforcing these rules engage in modest censorship, such as is the case in most major social media platforms currently, IMO. I believe the below can be applied to centralization of social media (it was actually about privacy):

I haven’t reviewed the bill, but neither Trump nor Pence were elected by New York State in any way. They won a national election and the electoral votes from New York didn’t go to Trump/Pence.

Further, neither are employed by the state nor did they agree to release their returns prior to being elected.

I agree there are constitutional issues if the law was written so if the law was written that actually compelled Trump to release his returns. However, the way you describe the law, it doesn’t even appear to actually apply to Trump.

I would personally find it hilarious if they passed the law only to lose in court on the grounds that the law as written doesn’t apply to Trump.

^^I am not 100% sure that is the most up to date information, although I don’t recall it being any different than what I posted.

The above is why I don’t think it is appropriate to simply add positive ratings to counter the negative. My suggestion is to act as if he will not remove the rating, which technically is true (absent action from theymos).
What specifically should be done when someone leaves up an inaccurate rating is up for debate. However my opinion is they should not be in the DT network and if they have left other good/accurate ratings, then others can review the ratings and echo them if they feel it is appropriate.

This wouldn’t apply in this case, but if they leave additional negative ratings that others deem accurate they can also be echoed.

Your trust ratings are based on your judgement of what is deserving of a tag. Your judgment is subject to change over time as you gain additional insight and experience. You may leave a rating today that you would disagree with in the future. There is no universal criterion for what deserves a rating (this is part of a larger problem with the trust system, but that is another discussion).

The question ultimately is who gets to decide if someone’s appeal to have a rating removed is successful? If you are around, then the answer is you, and this is based on your judgment. If you are not here because you passed away, are retired from the forum, or otherwise, then the decision becomes complicated. If someone else, or a group of people gets to decide then those who have you on their trust lists may not trust the judgment of this group of people. If you are alive but are (temporarily) away from the forum, perhaps unexpectedly, you might not agree with the decision of whoever decides the appeal, and if the rating is removed and you disagree then adding it back on would be controversial.

My suggestion would be to treat this as if someone will not remove a particular rating. If this means you take any particular action, or don’t take any particular actions, I would do the same in this case.

I think you are almost certainly bullshitting.

In the unlikely event your story is real, there are a number of litigation finance companies out there that can evaluate the merits of your lawsuit, and the chances of its success (either via a settlement or a verdict in your favor). A finance company can potentially give you what you need provided they believe your lawsuit is worth the $35k, plus a risk premium they decide is appropriate, plus interest.

Your lawyer should be able to refer you to a litigation finance company.

Merit is not intended to be traded, and as such, all merit is free. I have not worked for any of the merit I received, nor have I received anything of value for any merit I have sent.

I have sent a total of 413 merit since the merit system was implemented, and those I have sent merit to (and those they sent merit to, and so on) can send a cumulative total of 413 merit, for a total of 826 merit.

In order for someone to get onto DT1, they need votes from people who have received a total of 580 merit, I have already given in excess of enough merit for someone to get onto DT1 if that is what I was wanting to do (it is not).

If you only count the merit I have personally sent, the total merit I have sent enough merit to get an account most of the way onto DT1 if that is what I was attempting (it is not).

The only alt accounts I use for posting are used to post to avoid harassment. I may or may not have used these alt(s) for signature campaigns in the past, or in the future. Yes my alt(s) receive merit, and no, none of the merit is from me directly or indirectly. Yes my alt(s) receive more merit than most people around here. No, you cannot know the identity of my alt(s), although I would tell theymos if he asked, although he can also look for himself -- I have never taken steps to (try to) hide my alts from the administration.

---

I would challenge you to find a post I have given merit to that is not deserving of merit OR was written by someone who can be linked to me. I don't think you can find the former, and know you cannot find the later.

I think this is a pretty strong argument for someone not to be in DT (1 or 2). If someone does not trade and is not a participant in the trust system, I see little benefit in the person being in the DT network. The drawbacks to someone like this being in the DT network come with the risk the person somehow gets involved in shenanigans in which very inappropriate ratings are left (and go unnoticed).

From what I have seen DdmrDdmr is a good forum member who contributes and helps others in many ways. If he wanted to start being a participant in the trust system, I would not be opposed to him being in the DT network if he shows he gives accurate and fair ratings.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, do you mean that he publishes statistics?

I do not doubt people are being intimidated into excluding and/or removing inclusions of certain people, however it is difficult to push for changes because of something like this without providing evidence. Like I said, there may not be documented evidence if the intimidation is started and is successful between when the times the trust network is snapshotted. I am looking for evidence. 


You are wrong, that is not what I am doing. When you opened this thread, multiple people were pointing out that you do not follow your own guidelines for leaving trust. It is ridiculous to say you don't have to follow the rules you are advocating for. If you were you follow the rules you are advocating for, it would be much more difficult for theymos to ignore your suggestion.

The incident was not repeated, however you have not corrected the underlying issue. A number of established people said in 2014 that the rating should be removed, and those familiar with the situation probably still agree. I don't think it is appropriate for anyone on DT to have any inappropriate ratings, (no matter what else they contribute) that remain up after a discussion of the rating.

You may argue your rating against Armis violated an "unwritten rule" of the forum, however it also violates the rule you want to be written.

It is okay to occasionally be in the wrong provided you correct mistakes, and that should not be a reason to exclude someone from DT, however the mistake does need to be corrected.


I do not disagree with this stance, however you should also acknowledge that opinions on certain behaviors can change, and when standards change, if anything happened in the past that violate these standards, there should be corrective action taken, when possible.

Old versions of electrum will not sync with electrum servers. Users can upgrade their electrum client and it will sync. The electrum sub is here and the creator of electrum is thomasV.

I voted troll, but I think he will most probably repay late and make one last attempt to repair his trust. I don’t think it will work and he will probably start posting from one of his alts.

He absolutely used to own 2double0, claims to have lent money to him, was vouching for his identity (technically this was fraudulent if he did sell it), and they are backing each other. They both came back from long hiatus to take out loans. None of this is proof they are the same, but there are a lot of indicators that say they are.

He used to be sloppy with his various addresses, making it easy to link his alts together, however once he started attracting a lot of attention, he started getting better at hiding Blockchain evidence of his alts and IIRC, would randomly change the password to many of his known accounts near the same time. I wouldn’t expect to find Blockchain evidence today connecting any of his alts he will start using (or using more frequently).

I would be on the 👀 for someone who comes back from a long break that starts becoming active in the lending section (or someone who recently came back from a long break). Other tell tale signs of him would include being active in multiple lines of business that don’t require disclosing his physical location (he tends to avoid currency exchanges and shipments of goods).

Im sorry, but what do you think giving him more negative trust is going to accomplish? He already has multiple negative ratings warning others about him being late on loans and that his behavior is indicative of trying to pull an exit scam.

I can’t imagine what additional negative ratings could possibly say that would get someone to change their mind about trusting him.

You woke up at 7 PM

I might suggest that theymos audit a percentage of DT1 users and those that voted them into DT1 each month and check for multiple alts voting for the same person and giving merit to yourself in order to be able to vote.

Even if only a small percentage of users are audited each month, there would be a huge disincentive to engage in these shenanigans. Also, over time everyone should eventually get audited. If someone is going to be audited and have been in DT1 for some time, they would be audited as of multiple times in the past, including when they were first put into DT1.

I am actually somewhat surprised to see this happened (that this was not caught prior to Rmc... being added into DT1).

The first two guys were warning anyone potentially reading the thread about the dangers of using that link/casino. The third posted what amounts to nonsense.

My goal is to reward others who have taken the time to educate themselves about Bitcoin and other topics that I believe are consistent with the forum's values and ideals, and those who can show they have contributed over a period of time. 

I am not going to scam.

The avalanche of negatives does make it difficult now-a-days because many do not have the opportunity to show red flags of a scam attempt (they are tagged before it gets to that point, but there are also a *lot* of false positives, which is harmful to the community and the Bitcoin ecosystem).
I am not going to sell merits -- if I wanted to do this, I would earn them myself -- I have shown the ability to make sufficiently good posts so that I am one of the most merited form members, and this is while not being in a position of authority or power. The majority of the most merited accounts are either staff, DT or a merit source, or a combination of the above.

Here is a fun fact -- I was reviewing the BPIP most merited profiles, and it turns out one of the accounts I sold years ago is actually a merit source, and has earned more merit than me 

In addition to your assertion being explicitly baseless, you are ignoring the fact that I already have an unlimited stash of merits by way of making very good and insightful posts. I think you are biased because I have called you out on your inability to think for yourself, and your tendencies to side with the more powerful in a dispute in an effort to gain additional power yourself.

This is a concern of mine regarding using the merit system to determine who controls the trust system.

I would probably have a somewhat higher standard if I noticed someone shady is making good posts for the first small amount of merit I sent out, however if I noticed a lot of shady people are deserving merit in many instances, I would most likely open a thread with my concerns.

I hope you can improve. I also think you have become so extreme so that you are somewhat discrediting the arguments you are making. 

It is nothing personal. I will try to help you (and anyone else I see struggling) to be a more productive forum member, however I do have limits, and in some cases it may be too late by the time I notice what is going on.