 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
|
First of all, this thread is over a year old. Secondly, your best bet is to PM Dooglus and ask if he would consider a Neutral instead of the Positive.
I sent Dooglus a PM asking him to reconsider his positive trust. I was just curious how the trust system works because it is strange to see a scammer have such a high trust score, and thought it might be a glitch in the trust system. 10 is not a high score. Its the highest one can get for a single rating, but that comes with age not with trustworthyness. I am surprised that scammers have any positive trust at all, and would think they would only have negative trust, especially after actually scamming. I don't even understand what he did to deserve the positive trust It's his friend or have bought it
Do you have any evidence that it is a friend of Dooglus? I don't think it is okay to give your friend positive trust like that. |
|
|
|
First of all, this thread is over a year old. Secondly, your best bet is to PM Dooglus and ask if he would consider a Neutral instead of the Positive.
I sent Dooglus a PM asking him to reconsider his positive trust. I was just curious how the trust system works because it is strange to see a scammer have such a high trust score, and thought it might be a glitch in the trust system. |
|
|
|
Shouldn't someone on default trust have better judgment then to give an obvious scam positive trust? Isn't the point of being on default trust that the person give trust ratings that are relied on by others by default? If someone is giving out positive trust to obvious scams then why is everyone seeing ratings by default? |
|
|
|
I would like to know how it is possible that a scammer can have positive trust? bitponzi.io has a trust rating of 10: -0 / +1 yet he is a scammer: fkin shut down!!! Sent 4 BTC in all, only got 1.8 back?!
What did you expect from a ponzi? All ponzi are guaranteed to be a scam, sooner or later. They seem to have stolen at least .1 BTC from their players using 1290db3346ae15108d253fad749dae79dcd62d9975da0e01d867346342620c1c possibly to either bitstamp or another service that has been around since at least 2011. I also think most ponzi's are regarded to be generally untrustworthy, but it is unclear why this is different. Here is the entire thread for the scam. Screenshot of their trust:  Is it common to see someone have positive trust who is running a ponzi and who has scammed like this? Is this some kind of undisclosed flaw in the trust system? If so is there any kind of bug bounty for reporting bugs in the trust system? |
|
|
|
It appears to me like you've been around long enough to deserve a second chance since being tagged as a newbie loan-requester.
Asking for a non-reversible no collateral loan when you first join is considered an attempt to steal. It shows the user has little care for the community, and just looks out for themselves. Who considers this an attempt to steal? Are you saying that you make the overriding decision who is trying to steal and who is not? Apparently, this person received a loan with no collateral from someone with a lot of trust. Is that person trying to steal as well? I do offer a "one month cool down" second chance to new users that ask, provided: 1) You contribute positively to the community during that month 2) You do not ask for scammy loans any further You asked for your first no collateral loan on April 18. I missed that one.  I first tagged you on May 8 when you asked for another no collateral loan. You then asked for another no collateral loan on June 9 You then asked for another no collateral loan on June 28 If you "tagged" him on May 8, then he did not ask for a loan until June 9, doesn't that mean that he did go an entire month without asking for a "scammy loan"? If you want to join a signature campaign, I suggest you interact with the community in a positive way and build up trust that overrides my negative.
You want him to farm trust? I couldn't have done it if non-default-trust people were not leaving the appropriate feedback. Keep it up everyone!  Why do you classify people based on if they are on default-trust? Do you consider those who are not to be on default-trust to be some kind of second class citizen or somehow inferior to you? |
|
|
|
Edit: The second I said this, nearly all of my reported posts were handled, I guess mods needed a push in the right direction No, if you report newbie posts it'll be handled faster. Because there are a lot of Patrollers but not enough active Global moderators, you have to wait either dedicated board moderator or grue/hilariousandco to handle the report. On the other hand your reports could be marked as bad, so you don't see any action for them. I'm active 7/16 in this forum. I usually have 0 reports in my queue. Other Patrollers are very active, too. I, just like EAL, like to keep my report list at 0 reports. I either handle them (by marking them correct/bad) or ignore them if I can't handle them. Anyway, patrollers have been very very active lately and thus newbie reports get handled quickly. I also try to handle reports in the sections I moderatore as quickly as possible.  Marking it as bad will remove it from the reports queue and it will lower your accuracy. A mod can also ignore reports, which will hide that report from his queue.
Edit: The second I said this, nearly all of my reported posts were handled, I guess mods needed a push in the right direction
I handled quite a few of your reports in the last few days, can't remember if any of them were marked as bad. I see six bad ones recently so take that into consideration for ones seemingly appearing unhandled. Good job guys, keep up the good work. Because of your hard work and dedication, I think it is safe to say that it is not necessary to hire a new moderator with the qualifications of the OP |
|
|
|
|
I would help you but I don't want to ship across time zones/across state lines.
|
|
|
|
I have some BTC and I'm interested in purchasing some liquor, let me know what you got and how much it'll cost to get it in my hands.
Is this legitimate activation/products? I need Office 2016 for school and I don't want to full-price How old are you exactly that you are unable to buy liquor at a liquor store? Where would shipping be to? |
|
|
|
You are not the 1st person to have problems with b!z, around a month ago someone else claimed to have a similar issue, only that B!Z took the .25 and never delivered the script. |
|
|
|
Give me a good rate and you got my BTC. Trusted members only. Go ahead and PM me if you want them, going to the first trusted user to PM.
Ofc I will be going first.
In other words you want positive trust from someone who is trusted, yes? |
|
|
|
|
Where is your signed message from an old, unedited post?
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that it is a HYIP
/discussion
/thread
|
|
|
|
For those that don't know there is a strange new 'attack'
Uh no it's not new. This attack has be known for years, but it is only recently (within the last ~18 months) that there have been any serious consequences because of this issue. MtGox claimed that they had huge losses because of malleability attacks; though its unproven (there also where mallated transactions back then). they claimed that people withdraw btc. that tx was mallated. their system thought (because of the new txid) their transaction has not been in a block so they refunded. technically its not a double-spent btw as it only looks like one, but all outputs and inputs are the same: so imho it isnt. For the record, I do not believe MtGox's story for a minute, unless the transactions in question occurred many years ago prior to bitcoin having any real value. The malleability attack caused Gox to allow their customer to receive more money then they were really due. It would be similar to you tricking the cashier at Target that you should receive more change for your purchase then you really should. |
|
|
|
For those that don't know there is a strange new 'attack'
Uh no it's not new. This attack has be known for years, but it is only recently (within the last ~18 months) that there have been any serious consequences because of this issue. |
|
|
|
I haven't done anything with Bitcoin lately so I feel safe. I also only operate with Bitcoin core as well. I keep reading about this malleability problem and wonder when they will do something about this. It's a pretty serious thread. Will the LN help with this?
I'm glad someone else in this thread recognizes this is a serious problem. It's not a joke. Bitcoin Core is already fixed, which means the code is out there to make this not an issue. Blockchain.info needs to patch this as soon as they can, tons of people must be freaking out. The fact that someone is using core does not mean anything. The issue is that people are spending 0 confirmations transactions which cause transactions to become invalid once the changed transactions confirm. Any inaccurate display of balances in wallets will eventually correct themselves, most likely after restarting your wallet software |
|
|
|
|
He has been confirmed as a scammer.
He ended up deleting all of his posts and editing the OP's of the threads he created in order to cover his tracks. His dox is posted in the above referenced thread if you are interested in pursuing legal action against him because he stole from you.
|
|
|
|
It looks like everyone's activity is back to normal now.
What happened to this taking a few hours?
On the plus side, I significantly improved the efficiency of the activity calculator which was previously sometimes locking up the whole forum for a few minutes.
Thanks for clearing that up. It looks like theymos must have ninja-edited his post after I read it. Although if you read the rest of that post, it does say it will take several hours  |
|
|
|
|
It looks like everyone's activity is back to normal now.
What happened to this taking a few hours?
|
|
|
|
|
This is impossible to implement. Users receive e-mail notifications when PM's are received and it would be too easy to get around any kind of tracking to see when an e-mail is received from the forum (this is also ignoring the invasion of privacy that such e-mail tracking would impose).
I might support some kind of opt-in system when users choose to have a notification automatically sent to the sender notifying them their message was read. This might be good if a message does not elicit a response.
|
|
|
|
If those screenshots are legit then it probably was FrozenOne who originally added you on skype. I don't think that is sufficient proof that it is him though. Maybe you should PM him to respond to this thread to get his side of the story. Of course it was him, after our first trade he posted that he did a trade with me and I was legit... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1167415.msg12432321#msg12432321If there is a legitimate moderator, legendary, or hero member who wants to login into my skype and see that those screenshots are legit, im willing to do that. About 45min ago I accused him on his thread saying he was a scammer... he immediately took down the thread and went off line... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1199747.msg12593855#msg12593855Did he actually contact you on skype before or after he posted on your thread saying you had a successful trade? This looks like it could be a MITM scam, but it could also be FrozenOne actually scamming. It is hard to say which one it is. Either way, I hope this was not a lot of money for you and I hope that you can take this as a lesson to only trade with trusted users, and if you are trading with someone who is not trusted then you should use someone who is trusted to facilitate the transaction. He contacted me, I told him to add me on skype, we talked on skype through the whole deal, aftewards he left feedback on the post.. What is a MITM scam? The only thing I can do is let a trusted user or moderator go on my accounts and confirm everything im saying is legit.. So you were talking on skype during the previous deal that was successful? If so then it was him for sure. |
|
|
|
|
