Nah, you're pretty legit

You're welcome OP 

Guess I have to wait another 50 years...

I have mentioned before that this is about the only way to get your account back to offer the guy some coin to give it back.

I doubt it will be the actual "hacker" you are dealing with. I think the hacker probably just sells them and then whoever actually bought the account is also screwed when it is outed.

I don't think it is unethical depending on how you feel about paying ransoms. In that case the "hacker" guy would probably be best off to demand a ransom for the account in the first place but this is more like an offer to return lost property.

I guess you could set up a specific escrow for this particular situation but what are you going to do for awareness? Offer your service to every "help account lost" thread?

So hacker gets account and sells it to a spammer (often plagiarist) and get paid, then the spammer that bought the account gets screwed when his bought account gets red trust but he can get $25 of his money back if he gives the account back. He might do it if he knows the deal is available.

Kinda dealing with some dirty folks.


What do DTs have to do with it? It's just $25 but DT doesn't equal escrow..
You will just have to convince whatever DTs tagged it to remove them once the original owner gets them back..

It might make you look like you are running an account hacking racket though. If you are profiting off of it and have success it might look like you are the one getting the accounts to make a few bucks as a tagged hacked account is basically worthless other than this ransom you are thinking of.

So does bumping a 2 month old thread with a shitpost and instantly getting Jr merits for it..

0.106BTC

13 - eddie13

I don't mind the current DT system however centralized it may be because I trust and have great respect for the vast majority of those currently enlisted.
I think they check eachother pretty well also when their are disagreements everyone comes together to make sense of the situation, even non-DT have a voice, and usually everyone steps away with continuing mutual respect. Everyone misunderstands or is wrong sometimes.

But, if you really don't like it for being a "top down" structure I think you could scrap the appointed positions of power part and rather use an algorithm to calculate the weight of everyones sent feedback to be summed to each accounts final trust score.

Something like..
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20) = Weight of left feedback

Variables for "Rank" could be something like Legendary=1 Hero=0.75 Sr.=0.5 Full=0.25 with all lower ranks zero and "Trust" would be the feedback leavers current trust score. If the solution is negative (negative summed trust) weight=0
(Abuse resistance)

For a 900 activity hero with a trust score of 50 leaving a positive trust [(900/1000)0.75](50/20)=1.6875 round to 2 decimals would give the feedback receiver +1.69 to their trust score.

For a (very trusted old member) legendary with 2000 activity and 200 trust score giving a positive [(2000/1000)1](200/20)= 20 would leave +20

So the more established and trusted a member is, the harder their trust hits (more weight), and you would have to be atleast a full member, with net positive trust, for your feedback to carry any weight at all.  

A persons Trust score would be the sum of all received feedback. Negative left feedback would just be negative in the sum and subtract from the final score with equal weight.

In the risked BTC column you could give the option to enter a modifier from 0 to 1 so a person could reduce the weight of their feedback if they want.
He could type in "1.25 #0.5" so the legendary example above could leave only +10, or type "1.25 #0.1" to leave only +2. (for 1.25 risked BTC example)
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)(user modifier)

So a person could tone down the weight of the feedback they leave if they feel it is appropriate so they wouldn't have to be so conservative with every feedback they leave which is the case now. Maybe leave it continually editable for later changes.

If you wanted to keep the Time part you could add [(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)(Time)(user modifier) where each month equals 0.1 maxing out in 10 months as 1 so it would grow throughout 10 months to its full strength.

I'm no mathematician and I just chose my numbers to try to get a reasonably ranged result.

I don't much like to make suggestions because I am just a nobody and not a genius but I think a system like this would be cool to see.
I don't think this should be done but rather should be considered and brainstormed upon unless their are serious flaws in my logic I am not seeing.

I would probably just leave it alone because it is a lot better than nothing. Maybe an algorithmic system like this could be implemented in parallel with the current system at first so the old system doesn't have to get completely scrapped while working out the bugs and adjusting to the new system.

I don't consider this "a suggestion for alteration to the current DT1 list" so won't make an OP about it.

It could be worse. The system we have isn't perfect but what system is?

I am suspicious of users "Gunning for DT", I think we all should be, we need to keep an eye on them, and even they should understand that and be open to it.
The merit system has made it a bit worse, or should I say increased that activity, because the same avenue is also an outstanding path to a lot of merits. 
But you can't just hate them. I can't blame a guy for being ambitious and some of them have turned out pretty good. But this is crypto, and the internet, and we should be suspicious of everything and keep in mind their ultimate motives.

I don't think a person should be added to DT only for having left a lot of valid feedback, but should also display very good judgment in complex cases, and also be trustworthy enough not to be setting up for a long con. But leaving valid feedback is a good reason to add them.
It's not like DT=Trusted escrow though. I'm not sure I would trust half of them just to not screw up and lose my coins, and be willing and able to reimburse me if they did.

I understand the ideas behind wanting to leave positive feedback for all successful trades, or only trades where you took a risk, or only to those you would vouch for, or be against positive feedback left in the absence of any trade, or for it, or for or against leaving a negative with no trade. They all have pros and cons.
I'm generally for anybody doing whatever they think is the right thing to do even if their ideas are not parallel. As long as they have good intentions mostly in line with my view Satoshi's vision of liberty I guess.

Send negative trust to your old account "This was my account and it was hacked (date)"
See what you can do to get some DT to leave a negative on the hacked account, figure out what evidence you can muster and what evidence they will accept to place a negative.
Continue with your new account and start over. Start your company related OPs over again, warn in your old ones, and maybe you can get a mod to lock them.

I wouldn't hold out hope for recovering your old account. I'll give you a merit to help get you started fresh.
Take more proactive measures to not get hacked again. Stake a f'n address.

I think DT is more for placing valid scammer tags and the only sure avenu to becoming DT is to become a scambuster and leave a lot of valid negative feedback.
DT positive is very conservative because you are basically staking your reputation to vouch for someone, or risking the reputation of your judgment for not much gain. Moreso adding someone to DT2 because then you are staking your judgment on them not only not to scam, but on their judgment of others not to scam. It's just much easier and safer not to, and their isn't much upside.

Negatives are much more common and easier because you just prove a fact and that's it, and can't really be undone or later disproved while deserving a positive vouch can easily be undone in the future by a fact of bad action.
It is widely accepted that one shouldn't leave a positive just for any successful trade because blah blah risk not proof etc.
Negatives are 99.9% provable fact and positives are a judgement call, the way feedback is used.

I think it also has a lot to do with benefit to the community.
Scambusters and negative tags are very beneficial to the community to warn others and stop bad actors while positives are only good for what?, saving some traders some escrow fees and slight complexity in trading?
Positives don't really help a person much while negatives have a massive impact.

It is a lot less risky and more beneficial to add someone to DT2 that places a lot of valid scammer tags than it is to add someone who places a lot of positive feedback.

This site has turned more into a place for service gigs like advertising in one form or another, work you don't really need to be trusted to do, and less p2p trading where trust between parties is key and positive feedback is beneficial.

From what I see, not that I completely agree, not directed at TP, just my 2C.

Awesome man great job and thank you for renewing my confidence in my recollection!
I dug for a while too but didn't go that far back. When I came across his statement of never even reading his PMs I thought I must have been wrong.

So it isn't that close yet but a heck of a lot closer. About 2 years and 4 months left to look forward to possibly a greater understanding of what is Satoshi. Around 4-2021.
 
That is if the deal Theymos mentioned is still on. In all that time passed who knows what could have changed or what new dangers could have presented themselves.
I wouldn't blame him a bit if he had to rescind or further extend the offer but it is something we can look forward to some day legitimately finding out more about the great creator.

I really don't think so but I suppose it is a minute possibility. Not one of the best theories IMO.


Well, I have sent "strangers" on this site thousands of $ on faith in their reputations, and Theymos has handed members hundreds of BTC to old for the forum though I don't know how much of "strangers" they are or are not to him.


One of many plausible conspiracy hypotheses but if this is the case they surely went ALL OUT to make it look grassroots. Do you think they would have had the patience to let it slowly grow for so long vs pumping it to the public if that's what they ultimately wanted? All of the negative propaganda they spew from their outlets is just a facade?
Assuming you are speaking of the likes of the Rothschilds they surely have the patience to work toward a goal for a long time, generations, but their usual MO is more along the lines of usury and fractional reserve banking and BTC is quite a leap away from that.  

If it was done to counter China then why have they been allowed to dominate the POW aspect of BTC? They seem to stand just as much, if not more, to gain from mass adoption of BTC than any other entity. They also seem to be the most well set up to control their peoples use of crypto with their Orwellian grip of their subjects use of all things technological.


I prefer the (my) theory that Satoshi is just one person, a very intelligent ancap cypherpunk who had a great epiphany of how to give all people worldwide one of the greatest tools of individualistic liberty the world has ever seen. That he did it for the purpose of good for all humanity to decrease authoritarians ability to completely dominate and control their subject masses.
Optimistic fairy tale.

I think that was meant to be a joke by him and you likely just lost your coin, lol.

Even if he does review your service nobody will believe a word he has to say because obviously he has a history of being paid to leave false feedback. Quite ironic.

If you are seriously willing to provide the coin for reviews/vouches, even if they are to send it back to you, you should choose members with green trust (atleast black), and have atleast 4 gold coins under their name, so other members will take them seriously.
Not me.

Subscribed

cryptopia poloniex yobit c-cex bluetrade liqui huobi okcoin BTCChina bitmex tuxexchange coinbasePro bitstamp bitfinex gemeni kraken bitthumb zaif

One PRO of Satoshi's identity/story becoming known is that I would then know who really created BTC and that is good because I would like to know
The biggest PRO of that would be that I know that Satoshi is NOT the CIA and it would shut that whole theory down. It wouldn't be too bad to disprove that one.

I don't think Satoshi should be exposed against his will but I hope that one day he will come out and tell us everything from his inspiration to his motives, including his motives to have remained anonymous all this time.

Satoshi has crossed my mind lately actually.
IIRC Theymos (someone?) said some time ago that he has a bunch more Satoshi emails/PMs that he would release in a couple years and I think that time might be coming up relatively soon. Maybe 2019 but I'm not sure.
I will look and see if I can find some reference.

Edit:
Can't find it, maybe I remember something wrong.

Why?
Why would anyone "need" bitcoin at all if it lost its usefulness for its intended purpose? I just posted..


If they regulate BTC into some fiat-esque system where coins with untraceable history are worthless, they can blacklist your coins, to where they CAN stop you from using your coins as you wish, then what would be the "need" use case of BTC?

Need to castrate BTC so dumb money stops getting scammed, to stop scary "money laundering? I think not.
But sadly too many people would sign right up for it if they think they will be able to make a few bucks..

I think it will be interesting to see soon if they have any success blacklisting coins. I don't think they will succeed against obfuscation tactics but I don't think we know their true capabilities and don't think they will blow the cover off of their advanced tracing tactics for peanuts.
In the future I predict their will be another Snowden moment where we find out that they have been able to trace your transactions through common tactics for the last X years and it will just be another cat&mouse game with both sides trying to stay one step ahead of the other.

It seems to me that a great portion of the people that have crypto or are interested in crypto don't care much about the ideals at it's core.
Look how many people are looking forward to more and more regulation, and adoption within the finance industry, just so the price will go up.

We think we can "mix" coins but do we really know if it works? How do we know that they, chainalysis, MI5, or the NSA are more advanced in their TX tracking abilities than mixers can obfuscate?

If companies are going to start considering all mixed coins to be dirty they are really going to screw a lot of people and likely themselves.
Am I supposed to ask to see the inputs of any transaction to be sent to me before I can accept it so I can trace the inputs to see if they are "dirty"? How am I supposed to know where my coins came from? That is far beyond my capabilities other than some taint analysis tools I have seen. 

If this becomes a problem maybe their would be a way for us as the crypto community to protest it by mixing ALL of our coins. If we ALL did it wouldn't it defeat their purpose?
Maybe we could start a holiday of sorts where one day a year we all mix our coins to give them a big FU.

People don't "need" bitcoin to pay for dinners and houses, or to make a profit.

People "need" Bitcoin to resist tyranny and oppression as it is an unstoppable tool of liberty.

9 - eddie13

I have thought about this and still fail to see where this is implied in your post..
You even predict an outcome of such action to be where everything is peaches and cream, and Satoshi even comes back, lol.

When the unabashed communist stands with "If we just took all the money from the rich and gave it to the poor the world would be a better place", even though I know that will never happen, I will always stand against these ideas because that is what it takes to ensure it does not happen, action.


Is it the real solution? Is it what you advocate for or not?
Or are you just making a mockery out of all those who are whining because the only "real solution" is complete catastrophe?

I wouldn't consider it free
It's not supposed to be fair. If you are quicker, faster, and smarter you should get more. "Fair" is just feelings.




The only thing that can be abused is rules. The more rules you have the more avenues for abuse their are. The most "fair" is no rules and survival of the fittest, may the best man succeed. This is why freedom and free markets work so well..





The more rules you make the more rules you have to make and the end is complete authoritarianism.

Everything will be just peachy.

Wouldn't it just be obsolete with no signatures forumwide?


Didn't the first pizza transaction happen here?
Where would bitcoin be at all without the economy this forum has hosted since the very beginning?


I like address integration ideas but I don't see how this would solve any of the problems of this topic.
BTC addresses are about the easiest thing to create anonymously in existence. A millionfold easier than anonymously making an account here and with no realistic limit.

Yes, I believe so but I could be completely wrong.

My expectation is for a low of no lower than $2,500 but we could have already hit our lowest low since the last ATH.
I also expect another pump in the future to again dwarf the last ATH as had happened many times over so for me the prospect of how much to be lost from here is tiny in comparison to what could be gained.

I'm not selling and am more confident in putting more into BTC now than ever.