|
We have one, it's called the trashcan.
|
|
|
|
While I share the belief that bitcoin or something very like it will play a major role in the future, I think the road there is going to be a lot rougher.
I imagine we will see a huge boom then a bust, after that those who stick around will build the meaning full economy that will allow bitcoin or its successor to dominate.
this was "visionaire". Somewhat ironic, perhaps, that the author of that quote hasn't been active on here since August 24th 2011. That was Atlas, who had many alt accounts (~23 last I heard, likely more through proxies) that he jumped on when he made an idiot of himself/got too many ignores/forgot to take his meds/whatever. He did leave 4-5 months ago though. I've probably jinxed it by saying his name and he'll be back tomorrow. |
|
|
|
I personally agree that a scammer tag is premature, but I think that banning their ads in this forum would be appropriate - at least until they start shipping. I mean, they are pumping in preorders at a crazy rate, we all know that, and a lot of newbies are sucked in by their aggressive advertising strategy. They don't even have a working prototype after months of preorders.
We all know this is a shame (or worst).
I think we would have to change the rules on the ads auction cuz I don't think BFL violates any of them. Theymos can choose to not sell ads to whoever he pleases, but it's still covered, even in current auctions. In order to collect more money for the creation of good forum software, the forum is selling ad space in the area beneath the first post of every topic page.
Ads are allowed to contain any non-annoying HTML/CSS style. No images, JavaScript, or animation (no marquee or blinking). Ads must appear 3 or fewer lines tall in my browser. Ads will be prefixed with "Advertisement:". Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. Ads may be rejected for other reasons.
The one about lies and misrepresentation could also possibly apply, I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Asking for a scammer tag is a little premature, it isn't obviously a scam, just looks like some incompetent boobs who have very little experience, and at least they have delivered in the past. Handing out scammer tags every time someone doesn't meet a deadline is just going to drive businesses away and may even dissuade people from trying new ideas or funding that new start-up that looks promising.
We should be encouraging businesses and new innovations, not shrieking for scammer tags over customer service issues or terrible PR, or missed deadlines (although I'll admit it is getting a bit ridiculous).
It would have to be at a point where they've either been unresponsive for a long time, or admitted they can't refund the money and can't deliver before I'd support a scammer tag.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending BFL or their actions, I just don't think a scammer tag is appropriate at the moment.
|
|
|
|
It is hopefully possible to speak your mind and still avoid ignore highlighting. I intend for people to only be highlighted if they are often overly aggressive, rude, trollish, or off-topic. None of which have anything to do with the ideas themselves, but in the way that they are presented.
It is funny cause on this forum it works completely backwards. After one post I got up to 19-27 or something like that on my ignores and the post was talking about something that wasn't trollish, rude or off-topic it was actually a big huge problem for a certain foundation. People love bitcoin so much they rather be ignorant to things then deal and face it. That is what I see giving me my biggest amount of ignores from. Right now I'm at 9-18 and I don't really care about ignores. I've read a lot of your posts, I'm pretty sure that's not why you're being ignored. |
|
|
|
Why does BFL's CEO have the same name and is from this same HUGE city as a convicted fraudster? I can answer this one at least definitively. This is due to the fact that Sonny Vleisides, an officer at BFL, is in fact the very same convicted thief and has admitted as much publicly...just search. Course BFL in typical BFL fashion did not voluntarily admit this until confronted. Occasionally one BFL mouthpiece or another denies that Sonny is currently their CEO and I believe they claim Nasser is now, but I don't follow this ridiculous drama as closely as I did when I was actually considering an order with them. There are liars and convicted thieves in positions of authority at butterfly labs. Caveat emptor. You seem to have posted a strong criticism for "not follow[ing] this ridiculous drama". "as closely as I did". That came out a few months ago. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah it's definitely user friendly. I lost my install by putting that hard drive in my NAS as a cache drive and writing zeroes to the entire drive to check for bad sectors/variance in smart reports. I had everything important backed up at least. Except the GPG key but at least it wasn't the one tied to my real name.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. So it can be a second hand laptop?? I was under the impression that it must have never been online. Regarding the OS I will probably stick with windows then as i am by no means an uber nerd and would have no idea what a backdoor would even look like.  Yeah it's ok if it was online, just make sure you format the hard drive and install a new OS before using it. Thanks mate, so i will need a copy of OS on disk then? I just use a usb drive. |
|
|
|
|
Simple supply and demand. If you can do it cheaper then put up.
|
|
|
|
Why is it essential to get one in the first shipment? Will the early adopters mine all the coins?
Because as more ASICs come online, the difficulty will rise, making it more difficult for people getting on the boat late to make their investment back. |
|
|
|
Why does he have to answer anything when do you not answer the questions that have been asked of you....
Such as are you RETROPCDOS/BTC_GUY
littledick, i have already responded to your question. please take a deep breath and look through our previous exchanges. your answer is there. Depends. It can be trolling which I don't tolerate, it could also just be someone expressing their opinion, which is fine.
i agree with you about someone being able to express their opinion. when does it cross the line and become abuse? please look at all the posts little shop has made. is that not trolling or harassment? how much more do we have to take before its considered trolling and he is officially and publicly told to stop? Please define hatred and verbal abuse. Is the occasional 'fuck' and 'damn you' included? Only threats is removed, although if the sentence consists entirely of 'verbal abuse' it might be deleted for going off-topic.
verbal abuse is constantly throwing words at somebody with the intention of making them uncomfortable on the forum or trying to get them to engage in public fights. hatred is calling somebody a piece of shit scumbag scammer and telling them you are going to put them in a hole. is this behavior allowed on bitcointalk? Couldn't say, it's pretty subjective, just like what's considered hateful and abusive. Threats aren't ok, I removed it. I don't care about the rest, for the most part.
so is that an official yes? hatred and verbal abuse is allowed? Depends. It can be trolling which I don't tolerate, it could also just be someone expressing their opinion, which is fine. Can I read the forum policy on when expressing ones opinion is considered trolling? lulz! What a joke that statement is. (Wonders if I will be banned AGAIN for "trolling") I thought you.might be kidding cause nobody could be that naive and oblivious, but then I remembered how many outright scams you've fallen for and how many tens of thousands of dollars you've lost, and I realized you really are. Pretty funny . |
|
|
|
Threats aren't ok, I removed it. I don't care about the rest, for the most part.
so is that an official yes? hatred and verbal abuse is allowed? Depends. It can be trolling which I don't tolerate, it could also just be someone expressing their opinion, which is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Threats aren't ok, I removed it. I don't care about the rest, for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Many moderators are on the BFL payroll
Who? BadBear is invested in BFL. I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no investments in BFL or anything related to it. I rarely read anything mining related and haven't moderated anything there in over 2 months. I have seen private correspondence that proves this.
No you haven't. |
|
|
|
WoT will empower the users to make more informed decisions about scammers, but I think we should retain the warning about ponzi schemes as well. A ponzi or pyramid scheme will have almost purely satisfied customers until the day that it collapses; there might be complaints about technical or customer service issues, but everyone who join will earn money on it until the last guys left holding the bag. The scheme will thus have a positive rating on WoT until the day it collapses.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
I could provide the proof in a private pm type system in a matter of minutes. Poof, scammer tag - took a mod all of maybe 5 min to evaluate my complain. Offer the scamer a period of time to defend themself or get the tag removed. Time maybe 5 min to read thru counter arguments.
Wow - 10 minutes to investigate a claim.
That is a lot less than you have invested in this article, when you can't add the spammer tag. So you invested the time just to intentionally be a jerk. Thanks. Nice people around here.
Wow, it would only take you 5 minutes to completely evaluate a situation, consider all causes and effects or possible reasons, then ruin someone's reputation, based on what one guy on the internet says? I don't really have much else to say then, not much to respond to. Best of luck, hopefully you learned a valuable life lesson. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33835.0 |
|
|
|
I was one of the persons who gave Pirate a +10 rating, along with a sarcastic comment, after the scheme collapsed. Just to show how useless the system was. Because the ratings were the main reason I trusted in him... ...the ratings and how everybody around here touted the BTC-otc ratings as something to be taken into account when dealing with other users.
Pirate had a large mouth, so did a lot of other scammers. They brag, boast, and flap their feather wings, because of their big egos. This is a very large big red sign. Everybody should learn that. Not saying that the attention-seeking loud talkers are all scammers, but it seems like they very frequently is. At the same time, a lot of people get duped by all that hoopla. I hope it serves as an education for those who got fooled, and that they're more careful in the future.
The bitcoin-otc system is not foolproof, and I would not trust it blindly, I would do my own investigations before dealing with somebody, and I have turned down trades with users that have good ratings, simply because they could not provide some reasonable amount of information that I was asking for. I don't care whether they think I was just too paranoid, or whether they were scammers and were afraid of getting caught with their pants down. Either way, the end result was that I wasn't scammed.
No matter how much of a great trust rating Pirate had, I would've never done any deals with him, because I do not trust people that are jumping up and down, and handwaiving with excitement constantly.
Flamboyant egomaniacs are to be avoided at all costs.
I stayed away from Pirate for a long time, but at some point I decided to jump on too. Why? Mainly because of his #otc ratings and how this was supposed to help to protect one from scammers. Then many reported that they got paid, so whatever he did appeared to work to some degree. Of course there were warnings that it was probably a scam, but most of those ran similar projects so it wasn't easy to determine if those warnings were just part of a mud-fight. Also don't forget that Pirate met with a few of his investors face to face. Also I'm not sure if I was scammed by Pirate or paybtc. Some might say that the promises were too good to be true; but look at the btc price development: from less than cents to around $45 now in 2+ years. People laughed at bitcoin at the beginning and said it's just a scam; but look at it right now. The current scammer tag doesn't protect against long cons either. I think a WoT system is still better in the end. There may be fake ratings, but there are still signs usually pointing to that. A bunch of ratings on a new account from new accounts isn't gonna mean much, and they will have to use new accounts since accounts that rate a lot of people who turn out to be scammers won't be as trusted as others. |
|
|
|
How about a surety system instead of a rating system?
Could you elaborate? Alternative to ratings would be nice to hear about. You can't help those how can't help themselves.
I'm for a scammer committee. Two or three trusted member or maybe more then you have an x of y votes to apply the tag.
Some guys can be VERY aggressive. I know I jump the gun on occasion. But I think it would work pretty well. I would also put the community on notice that their trades are being policed.
We would also have to define SCAMMER.
My opinion it is a person who does not uphold their end of a deal after a period of time. The scammer thread it a place to publicly debate it and if the scammer make good the tag gets removed.
I DO NOT think welshing on a bet is scamming. So after the whole MNW debacle, even those he's an cocky arrogant asshole, I don't think he was a scammer. But the scammer tag did seem to silence him. So that was a good thing.
Just my 2c
Sounds good in theory, but we've tried something similar before and a few people got excited about it but it ultimately never went anywhere. That's here Do you think people would be willing to do that for free on an extended basis? Wouldn't want people rotating in all the time, it would get hard to find really trusted people who want to do that sooner or later. Could always require a small fee for scammer tag consideration I suppose, but that seems a little beyond the scope of what the forum should be. I'm still in favor of just replacing the system, I'll be interested in seeing what the users think though. What kind of deterrent would you suggest? What do you think will stop predators like this?
You make an excellent point in your entire post: nothing will completely stop scammers 100%. But I think that the amount of scammers can be cut down considerably, or at least a good amount in relation to the little effort it would take. I believe the same thing you do: a lot of our scammers can/will/do simply create new accounts and try again. Changing the newbie restrictions a bit would take very little effort and would make the process of getting a scam out there more difficult. It won't stop scams, but I think it would help prevent them. Scammers would likely have to go for bigger scams to make the reward worth the effort, and bigger scams would probably have fewer takers. If it works? Less scams for a change that could probably be done in a handful of minutes, which means less work for theymos. If it doesn't work? It still slows down the scams even if it doesn't reduce the total amount, which would also mean less (frequent) work for theymos. To me it's less about "more scammer tags" and more about deterring the scammers. You (understandably) don't have the time to monitor every single scam topic, so the goal should be reducing the amount or frequency of the scams that cause them. Honestly we'd rather remove the newbie restrictions, rather than make them tighter just to solve a problem that can't be solved. No matter what we do to make an account hard to get to the lending section, they'll just do it a dozen accounts at a time. Just look at the guy I was responding to. He sent 500 dollars to someone with 13 posts and a month on his account. What kind of restrictions can we place that wouldn't burden normal users too badly, yet cause someone to not want to make that kind of easy money? |
|
|
|
Edit: Actually you know what, in the end I agree with you, we should just remove the scammer tag system. People depend on it too much and use it as justification to be dumb assholes and send money to anonymous people on the internet (who couldn't possibly be lying), then blame the forum for their dumb asshole mistakes so they don't have to admit they're a dumb asshole.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that lately. I've been getting really sick of dealing with scammer cases. It probably takes up a third of my admin time, and despite being nearly useless, it's always controversial. However, I don't know that I can just let truly obvious scammers go without scammer tags. They'd become 1000-post VIP members and rip naïve newbies apart. And I can't give scammer tags to some obvious scammers and not others. We probably need to replace scammer tags with a web of trust rating system. Yeah it's probably time to ditch the scammer tag system, the forum has grown too large for one, or even a few people to oversee and decide all scammer accusations, especially with how mind boggling irresponsible so many people are. There are also a lot more businesses, and people want scammer tags for something that, in the end really looks to just be bad customer service (maybe, I'm undecided). The benefit of a rating system would be that it's averaged, so one bad complaint won't tarnish your record, whereas now, it technically should get you a scammer tag. Should a business be judged on a single action? I don't think it should, should be weighted. Downside is ratings can easily be faked or bought, I'm sure someone will mention Pirate had a perfect(?) otc score, but he also didn't have a scammer tag either (and technically wasn't one at the time). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
