Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2024, 01:19:17 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 ... 751 »
2021  Other / Meta / Re: DefaultTrust changes on: April 04, 2019, 06:12:00 PM
Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

The Administration isn't blind, but they are busy.  I assume at some point they will step in if things continue to go this way.  Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID.  It's really blatantly obvious that the new users are working hard to gain control by teaming up to damage the reputation of anyone they feel stands in their way.  When I look at my trust settings list, nearly all the older members are included, while nearly all the newer members are excluded.  This goes way beyond coincidence.
I suspect that there are at least one or two accounts that have been farmed and are being used by one or more of controversial players in DT that is currently in DT.

I find it difficult to believe that certain fairly new people have become so well known in a short time to have enough trust inclusions to be in DT1.

Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID
If the list gets too big and the limitation is automatic then it would make much more sense to increase the minimum required amount of total inclusions a member must have: +2 or +3 instead of the current zero for example.
Or it could be manual with explicit white- and blacklists.
I don’t think the root cause of issues is the number of people, but rather that the current system is vulnerable to manipulation.
2022  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 04, 2019, 07:42:36 AM
Quickseller, you are a proven scammer.  Other's business practices are irrelevant to the conversation of whether you should be trusted as a merit source. 
Your post lacks evidence, is libelous and was disproven in my previous response to you.


TMAN was also part of at least one extortion attempt that was unsuccessful, and who knows how many that has been successful.

 Roll Eyes
Very few criminals will do something only one time. The overwhelming majority of criminals are repeat offenders. A successful extortion will, by definition be kept private. 
2023  Economy / Lending / Re: Reputable user looking for $300k loan in btc on: April 04, 2019, 07:17:56 AM
You claim to be a a "reputable" user from LBC, however LBC accounts are traded here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118923.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110138.0

I found the above after a 30 second search. There are probably more examples.

Further, I am not sure the LBC account you cite has a reputation in excess of the loan amount you are asking for. I am also unsure if a loan default would be able to sufficiently harm the reputation of your LBC account, and harm your ability to do business on LBC.


Ok well I’m posting my real name so any lender can do their due diligence and understand that I’m really me and not a hacked account and they would be encouraged to come meet us in Las Vegas to understand our operation.
If one were to assume you are not a hacked/purchased LBC account (I am unsure if this is a good assumption), a potential lender would need to know what mechanisms they can pursue if you default. The most ideal mechanism would be the recovery of liquid collateral such as altcoins, however if that is not an option, then a lender may need to pursue obtaining a personal judgment (assuming you are taking the loan in your personal name), and would need to know what income/assets you have they could enforce a judgment against. If all of your income is derived from your business, a judgment may be more difficult to obtain.

In any case, I think the loan you are looking for is larger than most loans made around here. I believe there are a number of platforms that specialize in startup financing that would probably give you are better chance of getting the loan you are looking for funded.
2024  Economy / Lending / Re: Reputable user looking for $300k loan in btc on: April 04, 2019, 06:52:39 AM
You claim to be a a "reputable" user from LBC, however LBC accounts are traded here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118923.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110138.0

I found the above after a 30 second search. There are probably more examples.

Further, I am not sure the LBC account you cite has a reputation in excess of the loan amount you are asking for. I am also unsure if a loan default would be able to sufficiently harm the reputation of your LBC account, and harm your ability to do business on LBC.
2025  Other / Meta / Re: Lone Shark/ ChiBitCTy/ Limx Dev/ Am I unban material (The honeymoon guy) ?? on: April 04, 2019, 06:46:01 AM
I am not a historian, but it looks like you might have gotten this backwards. I am looking at a 2014 calendar, and May 12 is actually after February 27.

The OP's post appears to actually be the one that was plagiarized.

Actually the content is quite common copied by more projects as FAQ. I have found more examples but the OPs one was posted before I agree and I already found some traces of same content in the thread listed in the post.

Someone quoted it here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=450381.msg5107429#msg5107429

The content was probably in the OP of the post mentioned as reference and it was edited later and delete from there.

Still, I think he should have just quoted the text instead of copy pasting it directly.


The content may have been copied from the post quoted by the post you cited. However I do not think you are describing plagiarism, and it is certainly not something the OP should be banned, nor punished (by forum administration) for, as he clearly cited a source:
When it comes to plagiarizing, people will be banned when they pass off someone else's words as their own, not when they use BB code incorrectly, or make mistakes when citing the source to the extent that it is still clear there is a source, and the content is not original.
2026  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Privacy-first Internet! Are we there yet? on: April 04, 2019, 06:35:50 AM
I do have very serious concerns about modern major tech companies, however I believe the below is relevant:

If they provide services/benefit that exceed these privacy intrusions, they should be free to continue using these platforms. The selling point of giving up private information is doing so allows the platforms to display ads relevant to the end user, and can otherwise provide useful information to the end user. [...] I don't think anyone should be forced to have certain levels of privacy if they don't want privacy, or if they believe the benefits of of giving up certain information outweigh the value of privacy. This is not to say that people should be disallowed from having privacy if that is what they want.

[...]
2027  Other / Meta / Re: Lone Shark/ ChiBitCTy/ Limx Dev/ Am I unban material (The honeymoon guy) ?? on: April 04, 2019, 06:18:48 AM
I am not a historian, but it looks like you might have gotten this backwards. I am looking at a 2014 calendar, and May 12 is actually after February 27.

The OP's post appears to actually be the one that was plagiarized.
2028  Other / Meta / Re: Real selfies in the KYC thread. on: April 04, 2019, 06:07:12 AM
If these companies repeatedly misuse and/or mishandle customers' data, their customers will not give this data in the future, and advertisers may not want to advertise on their platforms.
In an ideal world, yes. But in the real world, [...examples...]
Okay. If they provide services/benefit that exceed these privacy intrusions, they should be free to continue using these platforms. The selling point of giving up private information is doing so allows the platforms to display ads relevant to the end user, and can otherwise provide useful information to the end user. I don't think Facebook should be lying about what they are collecting from their users, but I also can't say their customers *must* be mad when this happens. I don't think anyone should be forced to have certain levels of privacy if they don't want privacy, or if they believe the benefits of of giving up certain information outweigh the value of privacy. This is not to say that people should be disallowed from having privacy if that is what they want.

I think the two statements you appear to be making conflict with each-other:
*Facebook (as an example) should be punished for mishandling customer information
*Facebook's customers do not care (based on their subsequent actions) that Facebook mishandled their information
2029  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 04, 2019, 05:44:09 AM
Quickseller, you are a proven scammer.  Other's business practices are irrelevant to the conversation of whether you should be trusted as a merit source.  
Your post lacks evidence, is libelous and was disproven in my previous response to you.

Further, it is difficult to take you seriously after you supported allowing someone back whose actions objectively harmed the community, for reasons that were none other than for selfish personal gain. Your first reaction to this person being removed from the community was suggesting something that would objectively harm both the forum and the bitcoin ecosystem. And your rationale for allowing him to come back were summed up as being he was still alive and he conducted business with you.

QS Isn't going to go around meriting posts that don't desetve it nor is he going to send 50 to a ton of people


He should be a merit source.


Thank you sir!

The basis for my claim is your history of suckpuppeting and lying.
It seems you are unable to back up your suggestion. This makes me believe your prior statements (and others in this thread) were politically motivated, with the hope of gaining influence/power. On its face, your various stats may indicate you are a helpful forum member, however to anyone who is paying close attention, you are a toxic person, and should be avoided.

This is an example of a post being given merit for political reasons by a merit source.

edit: I have a long history of finding those who make "objectively high quality posts" that extend well before the merit system as I advertised my own business via a signature campaign that I ran personally, and those that participated generally ended up making objectively good posts during the specific duration the campaign was running.
2030  Other / Meta / Re: Lone Shark/ ChiBitCTy/ Limx Dev/ Am I unban material (The honeymoon guy) ?? on: April 04, 2019, 03:19:42 AM
I do think a permanent ban for a single instance of plagiarism from a legendary person is a bit harsh. Especially considering the person isn’t reasonably a signature spammer. The underlying reason seems to be financial though.
2031  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 03, 2019, 11:40:21 PM
For some reason I thought Quickseller was made a merit source back in September when Theymos tapped a bunch of members who hadn't applied.
I thought he was a source too.
If multiple people have though I was already a merit source, and there has not been controversy/concerns with the merits I have been giving out, I don't see any reason why anyone would have legitimate concerns with future merit I give out. I am in the top 25 in terms of recent merit given out.

To those who are saying I will use my sMerit to my own alts, this is not only libelous but is illogical. I have demonstrated that I can earn merit with my own well thought out and insightful comments in my posts. There is no need for me to give merit to myself nor will I. I would request that anyone who has suggested this to either provide evidence of this implication or retract your statement.

And I would request that you publish a full list of all accounts that you've ever posted with on this forum and keep us updated when you acquire new ones.

Is that to say that you have no basis to backup your claim that I would give merit to my hypothetical alts? I will again demand a retraction.

I think TF and Master-P should also apply. We need more scammer sources.
Its too bad I am not accused of scamming anyone.

You collected escrow fees while clearly not supplying escrow services.  That is theft by deception and makes you a scammer.

Any fees collected in regards to what you are referring to was refunded....

Minerjones is rated the most trusted person on this site with the current DT structure and he allowed TMAN to manipulate an auction he was hosting on TMAN's behalf to actually run up the price on buyers. 
Minerjones also backed out of many auctions after they closed under the guise the "real" seller backed out. He also has been at least one escrow of multiple transactions in which those he was supposed to be protecting were told they might not recover the entire amount he was supposed to be protecting (due to escrow incompetence) after one party scammed.

TMAN was also part of at least one extortion attempt that was unsuccessful, and who knows how many that has been successful.
2032  Other / Meta / Re: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) on: April 03, 2019, 06:16:35 PM
There is not very much activity in the serious discussion section and threads are often not responded to. This makes me believe not many people visit this section.

So do you think it's because Signatures are disabled there?

Yes, and because posts there don’t add to post counts. If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree on the topic, but in any case, you don’t have my support.
2033  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 03, 2019, 05:04:04 PM
For someone who's a strong critic of the system and member who oversees the affairs of running that system which includes theymos himself (admin), moderators and merit sources. it's quite surprising seeing you applying to work for that system. It's just like Hillary applying for an office in the Trump's adminstration. I doubt you'll get what you want anyway goodluck on your application you truly need it (the GoodLuck).
Unlike Hillary Clinton, I am not corrupt and cannot be bought.

My goal is to contribute in a way that improves the system.

To those who are saying I will use my sMerit to my own alts, this is not only libelous but is illogical. I have demonstrated that I can earn merit with my own well thought out and insightful comments in my posts. There is no need for me to give merit to myself nor will I. I would request that anyone who has suggested this to either provide evidence of this implication or retract your statement.
2034  Other / Meta / Re: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) on: April 03, 2019, 04:43:54 PM
There is not very much activity in the serious discussion section and threads are often not responded to. This makes me believe not many people visit this section.
2035  Other / Meta / Re: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) on: April 03, 2019, 04:21:49 PM
Quote

I don’t necessarily want more people posting there but I do want people to read those sections on a regular basis. If this is what it takes to achieve this goal then I am okay with more people posting.
2036  Other / Meta / Re: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) on: April 03, 2019, 04:05:35 PM
We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

Although, I was not aware of this but anyway this is already mentioned above. So, I feel it shouldn't be exactly a major task to have it applied on Scam Accusation and Meta Section.

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?
I see no benefit to removing ads from these sections. If anything removing ads would give people with paid signatures to not post there, which in turn will cause less people to visit these sections, which is not a desirable outcome.

Disabling signatures is a kind of moderation/restriction.

IMO, your motivations are transparent but I prefer to attack the suggestion and not the messenger.
2037  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 03, 2019, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: TP
Despite that, I have mixed feelings about the merit source application.  I think QS knows what constitutes a good post and he might not use his sMerits for political reasons.  The only concern with him (and all potential merit sources) is trading/selling it.  With his spotty past, which includes account selling in addition to the escrow stuff, I just don't know.  But hey, it's not up to me.  Good luck, QS.
I won’t sell any merit, I don’t need to, if I was going to sell merit I would earn it myself, and have shown the ability to earn a lot of (in top 100), and have not sold any merit. I do believe that the forum selling merit would probably get the desired effect of improving post quality because people would be forced to pay to wear paid signatures and would have skin in the game when posting and would be risking losing what they paid if they post junk, but that is off topic here.

I won’t use merit for political reasons even though other sources have given merit for likely political reasons for posts that are not objectively high quality posts — they are just not as transparent as stingers was, but that is also off topic here.

I do wish for people who put in effort into their time and posts here to be rewarded and those that junk up the forum to not be. You can review my sent merit history (I have sent a lot, more than most people ) to see that I have a history of giving merit to objectivity high quality posts.
2038  Other / Meta / Re: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) on: April 03, 2019, 03:45:39 PM
We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.
2039  Other / Meta / Re: QS Merit Source Application on: April 03, 2019, 02:23:43 PM
I think TF and Master-P should also apply. We need more scammer sources.
Its too bad I am not accused of scamming anyone.
2040  Economy / Reputation / Re: (SCAM ALERT) Lovesmayfamilis/Avirunes/Coolcryptovator - Merit Collecting Scheme on: April 03, 2019, 06:50:43 AM
1 - avirunes has no need to "collect" merit because he is already a legendary member.

I will also repeat what I said in your other thread, at least the important part:
If there appears to be a credible accusation against someone, it is not inappropriate to leave a provisional rating against the person while they wait for additional information to come out.

If you present evidence to show your innocence, OR the accuser (or anyone else) cannot provide sufficient evidence to show that you are a scammer or that you tried to scam someone (or will likely do so in the future) then the ratings can be removed.

The reason for this is so that others will be warned about dealing with a potential scammer.

The purpose of the trust system is to give an assessment of a potential trading partner's ability to trust someone.

It is not uncommon for a scammer to be trying to scam multiple people at a time, and a quick negative rating may prevent additional people from getting scammed after the 1st accusation surfaces if they have not sent the scammer money or property yet, or it will at least cause them to ask questions and take additional precautions to protect themselves.

[...]
If you want to compare the trust system to the legal system, then I would tell you that if there is probable cause that anyone committed a crime, the police can arrest them, and can hold them in jail for a period of time without charging them. The standard of probable cause is very low, but has not been defined by the US Supreme Court to my knowledge. In many jurisdictions, if there is a 51% chance that a crime was committed, the standard of probable cause will have been exceeded.

It is absurd to say there should be a delay from the time when you (allegedly) scam someone until when you should get tahhed.
Pages: « 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 ... 751 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!