Above is a video of Lauda explaining how he spends her day around here.
Quickseller was never able to understand gender...  I identify this post correctly showing laudas gender. The signed message I posted proves this fact. |
|
|
|
|
It seems like theymos doesn’t like merit being given for political purposes. I can’t really disagree with this, but realistically this happened prior to the new DT system was put in place.
The above begs the question if it is acceptable to *not* give merit for political purposes.
I am on the fence if this is currently happening, but is a question to discuss.
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96sAbove is a video of Lauda explaining how he spends her day around here. I know this is him because he is the only person who can possibly describe themselves and their day the way the person in the video does. Note on doxing rules: I have posted an encrypted message below that I am calling a signed message that will entirely absolve me from any wrongdoing in making this thread, and if you disagree, you are a scammer, and want to help scammers. -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hQEMA4+wLeKAm0ZCAQf/de2Ppm1RbMN6KOW+iABf8YhzWkaw/fiWSjhNAyJzG1Xk IY+NcBBUa95D3zh6d9rIPWKS8L3+8HjAA842Pdu+vzXPzSsRTCX9/8+hlop3OTaj JT+qIu9017H/Lqw2ZoWxeuSYEQSX9uJB5OURuXGxahubAaZgMeUNDbikWqxBcvEA XXdnZ6yDjcY6GkwMY65cRzqeTH4RcwG1CoHiO6p8mdxGZkoOJa+vzsr9Wn/KdQ0R HhFRiMUbboZGOgkFJ8yw74CBZg4Z7ws9j1yDnO8k15qDldZautcpqfEd5777+x3d vSAnSMn4Atqo9CnKybuKHHno5aNb6bCNCak+a0Ql+tLAGgHiil5vsCBsvatLdJDr eFOWfIAbLwEo+VHNosvbYsYHoEwdawEaS8yIIasNGTz7DP6C5ZkL8kjeu3J99s+S fsQ9g8buaWDydNjsZjtZpdFLJzM+a98kM8WGGaBaN3ihbNvvU+SdZrbOQFlqRd81 Sm4bIEcQen4iDEUflkY5thQZaMhwYo+Qc6iWwKCKI4/1LkhZDt1FO7o/ysw1PVFe q5hf/oIAaMK/jRxNOmvCCJdWwX5rIgofmiCTZdTLFHIoMoBLyJarR6mJ3ukmH2P/ ecCH/zFTTkl6ILal =EG5X -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
what business is it of lauda to run a sting operation
is lauda the police ?
<snip>
why should lauda care if he paid his taxes on his crypto ?
From what I've read, that whole thing wasn't ultimately about taxes and the signed message from Lauda prior to the operation explains what they were doing. It was ill-advised for them to do that, especially as Lauda was a staff member at the time, and he/she even admits that. I think that's also why Lauda got removed as a staff member, but I did not see this as a true extortion attempt, especially coming from Quickseller. Those two have been feuding since forever. As far as the harassment goes, that's an assertion that I've never seen evidence for. I'd tend to agree that threatening via telephone is a really bad idea, but I don't think I have all the facts to make a judgement on that. I don't know what was said or if any such phone call was ever made. I don't even really understand what the whole sting operation was supposed to be about other than the suspicion that zeroxal was involved in some criminal activity. That is a ridiculous assertion on both fronts. I challenge you to find someone who has claimed I have stolen or misappropriated funds (that is not later shown to be baseless) -- I will save you the time, no such claim exists. (I await your apology when you agree no such claim exists). Of course the whole "sting operation" was not ultimately about taxes. It was about the fact someone was known to have a large amount of bitcoin worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and few living expenses. Paying any extortion bounty is not even evidence of wrongdoing, it is evidence the stopping of the threatened criminal harassment and probable hassle of an IRS audit is worth more than value of the bounty. The signed message was also not a signed message, it was the claimed content of an encrypted message (lauda knew the difference at the time) that was posted to multiple pastebin websites in order to create the appearance of an alibi if/when he was called out on the extortion attempt. It would be impossible to ever see the "signed message" if it was not presented and decrypted. If the extortion bounty was paid, it is almost a certainty lauda would not have been called out on the extortion, and there would be no reason to ever present that "signed message". There could even be more "signed messages" out that that are similarly encrypted that say something different that would be presented if the extortion was paid and lauda was called out -- we can never know one way or another. |
|
|
|
Which is more important in your endeavor, a net-positive outcome for the forum and community, or removing Lauda from DT?
Taking a look through all of the people you're seeking to exclude, you're going to be doing a LOT of damage if you are successful. I'm just wondering if you believe the ends justify the means?
You are assuming that Lauda being on DT is a net positive for the forum. You are wrong. Lauda has given over 4,000 negative ratings, which is a lot. However the appropriate use of a negative rating is to warn others that trading with the person will likely result in a scam attempt against you. This does not apply to nearly all of the ratings that Lauda has left, the overwhelming majority of the negative ratings Lauda has left are in relation to someone having a bunch of alt accounts, someone posting "poorly", or someone "breaking forum rules", none of which have anything to do with the chances of being able to successfully trading with the person. The above abuse of the trust system by Lauda actually hurt the community, and safety of the forum marketplace in many ways: - It takes a long pattern of poor posting to get banned from the forum, however once someone receives a negative rating, they will often abandon their account in favor of a new account, delaying any potential ban. A ban includes a prohibition from creating a new account that can (and is) enforced via means that will catch almost all instances of ban evasion, while an arbitrary negative rating will have no such effect
- Many innocent people have been effectively excluded from the marketplace for arbitrary reasons
- Actual scammers are able to continue stealing from others, even after they receive a negative trust warning because they can claim they received negative ratings unfairly or for reasons other than the ability to be trusted
- There are no clear "rules" someone can follow to avoid receiving an arbitrary negative ratings, the result of which is corruption
I am not a big fan of having "strangers" and others who have little/no trading history in trust lists and/or the DT network, and as such, I cannot endorse the stance of the OP. Many who the OP is suggesting to include in trust lists are people I don't necessarily think are best to be in the position of the amount of power/influence of DT. |
|
|
|
Any Moderator can feel free to check my PM's if this is legit or not.
This person can report the last PM to a moderator, who can confirm its legitimacy. I personally think the quote is faked, but am willing to keep an open mind about the situation. There are red flags about the screenshot you posted that haven’t been brought up yet. |
|
|
|
Try actually reading the thread... I never said any such thing. bitcoin.com again proves that it is absolutely worthless by completely fabricating that quote.
The full quote: Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.
This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.
So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now:
• One softfork, which would activate ASAP, would assign an OP_NOP to OP_LAMPORT (or whatever QC-resistant crypto will be used). Everyone would be urged to send all of their bitcoins to new OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses.
• One softfork set to trigger in 5 years would convert OP_CHECKSIG to OP_RETURN, destroying all coins protected by OP_CHECKSIG. People would have until then to move their BTC to secure addresses. Anyone who fails to do so would almost certainly have lost their money due to the ECDSA failure anyway -- the number of people who lose additional BTC would be very low. (There might be a whitelist of UTXOs protected by one-time-use addresses, which would remain secure for a long time.)
There have been some reports that Blockchain analysts experts do not believe the exchange has the claimed amount of coins in cold storage, or at least not in a cold storage address with many transactions to the address. It may have used a new address each time a transaction to cold storage was made. Some of these experts believe many of the withdrawals from their hot wallet went to various other exchanges, although this may have been legitimate customer withdrawals. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure why you edited out the other person's name. If this is legit, suchmoon would know exactly who this is by looking at her PMs.
|
|
|
|
What a load of tosh. It's the US sanctions and subversive regime change activities that have screwed Venezuela. Everybody knows that the US just wants to steal the oil and gold reserves, and John Bolton has declared this publicly. We must be getting close to a massive world shakeup when Russia or China, or some other nation sinks a US aircraft carrier. Maduro is an ex-bus driver, and not the best politician that the world has seen, but the US must remove sanctions, and give the Venezuelans a chance to escape from starvation and foreign oppression, and try to rebuild their country. Venuezla had problems before we put sanctions on. The US did not apply any sanctions until mid-2015, and there were reported food shortages years before that (official data stopped being reported after there were shortages of about a quarter of goods).
The US has never won a war since the American civil war, and half of them lost that. It needs to be careful now that it is losing its military edge, world approval, and economic strength.
The US is a two-time world war champion. |
|
|
|
|
Tonight in Trump's State of the Union address, he condemned socialism and said "America will never be a socialist country". He also condemned the dictator currently in power (although not recognized as the legit president) who has used violence, killings, and frivolous criminal charges to stifle dissent in his country.
Socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez looked very uncomfortable as this condemnation received bipartisan applause.
Socialism in Venezuela has changed what used to be one of the wealthiest countries in South America into one of the poorest.
Even Nancy Pelosi applauded when Trump issued this condemnation.
|
|
|
|
If we're talking about things like signature campaigns, most already have provisions in place that preclude anyone tagged with a DT neg from joining, which I agree with. Projects don't want to be associated with scammers or even red-trusted members who aren't necessarily scammers but who might have done questionable things in the past (like mdayonliner) which earned them red trust. The difference in the eyes of campaign managers (IMO) between Lauda's ill-advised sting operation and mdayonliner's $100k escrow attempt is the relative amount of trust each has. Lauda has earned a ton of positives and has a far more established, net-positive reputation than mdayonliner. You are the one who mentioned lauda, not me. Anyway, on the subject of signature campaigns (or bounty campaigns), employing someone who has tried to extort someone as a manager is a bad reflection on the underlying company. They are effectively the face of the company, or at least more so than any individual participant in a signature campaign. The underlying reason why companies do not want someone with negative trust participating in their signature campaign is because they do not want to be associated with a scammer. On a specific trust rating level, Lauda has shown his willingness to tarnish the reputation of anyone critical of him (which is a far cry from leaving him negative trust), and has more or less lobbied for the exclusion of anyone willing to leave him negative trust for his extortion attempt (which was not a sting operation as he claimed). |
|
|
|
In particular, in my view:
<snip>
Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes. What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that. TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust [people for issues not related to a specific trade] IMO..... You should be able to articulate why it is dangerous to trade with someone you are giving negative trust to. The word "dangerous" would mean this person will attempt to steal money/property they are not entitled to in an average sized trade OR this person has tried to do this in the past (successfully or otherwise). So if you observe someone doing x, and you leave a negative rating because they did "x", you should be able to explain why "x" means someone is likely to attempt to steal money/property in the future ("x" could be a scam attempt, in which case, it would be pretty self- explanatory). Someone engaging in a long con might successfully complete some trades before trying to steal from others, so successful trades should not automatically mean negative trust is wrong. However many successful trades should work in a person's favor if they have not tried to scam in the past. |
|
|
|
[...]
A contribution from my side would be a bunch of merits, as per the discussion in this thread merit is one of the most important part to vote for the DT and change it. I have some smerits to award for all the trust abuse supportive here.
You need 10 earned merits to vote right?
I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. [...]
Is stingers still a merit source?
Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans. I can't say I disagree with this decision, however I think this highlights a problem with the current DT system, and to a lesser extent, the merit system. I reviewed the posts he gave merit to on Feb 5, and I would say a good 40% of the posts reasonably had a fairly high amount of effort put into them, another 40% were good enough to receive merit if someone was being aggressive in giving away merit, and two or three were not reasonably deserving of merit (unless you agreed with what they were saying). This is a problem because the only reason he was caught was because he was openly trying to meddle with the trust system voting. If he had not made this public statement, no one would have any idea what he was doing, and all that merit would be sent for political reasons. On the merit system, I have seen few controversial posts with large amounts of effort put into them that have merit, especially from merit sources. Conversely, I have seen many reasonably low-effort posts that make a "popular" statement with merit from multiple people. |
|
|
|
I would point out there doesn’t appear to be any motive in hacking the account as to my knowledge he hasn’t even tried to conduct any business. Putting a lot of effort into falsely claiming you are the owner of an account isn’t logical to me in this case. If it is illogical for a user to do A for R and that is your proof of ¬R then I vehemently disagree. That is called an exploitable vulnerability. A flaw in reasoning. Illogical ≠ Impossible. No, the hacking of the account being illogical does not mean it is impossible, obviously. But it is evidence (circumstantial) that there is no hack. It should be weighed with other available evidence. I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original BTC_Bear.
I don’t think a 75% chance is appropriate for a negative rating. Well, that's obviously a matter of judgement or opinion. I personally consider someone I'm only 25% certain being the person in e.g. the passport he's showing, not trustworthy. Not trustworthy for me is reason enough for a negative trust rating. I think you are using the wrong standard. If a stranger asks you to trade (when you are known to engage in similar trades), you will see this person as not trustworthy, and as such will put yourself in a position in which he is in possession of money that belongs to you. It would not be appropriate to give this person a negative rating. BadBear had a standard that he wanted to be 100% sure, without any someone was a scammer before leaving a negative rating (which from what I could tell, was more strict than beyond a reasonable doubt), and Tomatocage worked to ensure his ratings were fair and accurate, and I believe he has a very high standard for tagging a scammer (although probably not as high as BadBear). I don't have an issue with a "tag first ask questions later" trust policy, so to prevent someone from quickly scamming multiple people, and continuing doing so after being called out as a scammer, however once questions are asked, a high standard should be used. I don't think "75% certain" is a high enough standard, especially considering the lack of motive, and the ~month delay in getting "caught", during which time a hacker would likely have tried to either scam or build up reputation, neither of which happened. |
|
|
|
Check out the latest trust rating Lauda has left me.  The reference thread takes you to a complaint from minifrij where he was upset that I pointed out he removes/replaces feedback when he doesn't get his way. Today I also pointed out that Lauda has engaged in this same behavior against user rmcdermott927 on this forum. Anybody know how me pointing out that minifrij is attempting to bully me by misusing the trust network equates to me being a scammer? How does this fit into a reasonable DefaultTrust network rating? It is no secret that Lauda routinely gives negative ratings in order to silence criticism of him and his associates. |
|
|
|
Yes, they do that and there is a very clear case of trust abuse happening with me. I am not engaged in any shady active here, even I don't earn form signatures by posting here and there is nothing scammy I have done which should state Warning: Trade with extreme caution!.
This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.
VIP account JusticeForYou has been blocked today. After investigation, I consider the evidence to be most strongly consistent with the hypothesis that his email account was hacked and then used to take his forum account. He has the same email address as before, but it's @gmx.com, and we all know how secure that is. The forum account was first newly-accessed via email-reset rather than by password. IP evidence is also generally suggestive of it not being the same person. I also find his general behavior to be suspicious. I asked him some challenge questions related to data I have and the real BTC_Bear should know, but his answers were only half-correct, and are more consistent with having access to a bunch of emails going back to at least 2011 than having actually lived it. However, while he definitely wouldn't have enough evidence to recover the account if he didn't already have access to it, I have enough doubt that I'm not willing to lock the account at this time. There are plausible explanations for the above evidence against him, and if he is a hacker, he's done an unusually large amount of research, at least. I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original BTC_Bear. I don't have alternative contact info for BTC_Bear or I'd try contacting him. He was very active on #bitcoin-otc IIRC; maybe someone can try asking nanotube or the other #bitcoin-otc regulars. BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize & thank the original BTC_Bear (whether or not he is the current account owner), who on several occasions went to considerable effort to contribute to the forum in the early days. You should work on your reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original BTC_Bear.
Nice, thanks for your research and input on this. I'm betting he's not the original owner of the account just on language alone, and I'm hoping he'll just come clean now if that's true. He's already tagged with the possibility of the account being locked still on the table, so he might as well be honest at this point. I don’t think a 75% chance is appropriate for a negative rating. I would point out there doesn’t appear to be any motive in hacking the account as to my knowledge he hasn’t even tried to conduct any business. Putting a lot of effort into falsely claiming you are the owner of an account isn’t logical to me in this case. I think the above is especially important because: BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize & thank the original BTC_Bear (whether or not he is the current account owner), who on several occasions went to considerable effort to contribute to the forum in the early days. |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm strongly inclined to tag anyone who knowingly hires frauds/scammers - although each case would have to be reviewed independently. e.g. a BH accepting a translator which was already tagged as fraudulent.
By your logic, anyone employing a known extortionist should be seen as untrustworthy. I will keep this in mind... |
|
|
|
The wealth tax is actually unconstitutional. The 16th amendment says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration The 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As such, since the constitution only allows congress to tax incomes, and not assets, a wealth tax is unconstitutional. The estate tax is constitutional because it is not actually taxing assets directly, but the transfer of assets from the deceased to their estate. |
|
|
|
|
She doesn’t understand economics either.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
