Latest posts of: actmyname

Rabble rabble. I'll pick up the remaining tickets in the ception.

An announcement that the new Bitcointalk forum has been finished.

Quote

26. Local thread rules, if stated properly when the thread was started, specific enough and don't conflict with the forum rules, have to be followed.

Can we stop with the local thread rule bullshit on Meta?

What is 'making it personal'? Can you rigorously define that?

If your post, in response to a false allegation, is: "Your claims are unsubstantiated. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion." then I do not see why it would be off-topic at all. Do you have an example of one such response that was deleted?

If a "local rule" is added after the thread is created, it is not in effect.
If a "local rule" states that user A cannot post in the thread, then user A should not post in the thread. Regardless of how unfair the rule is, it is at the moderator's discretion for enforcement and if I were A then I would stay on the side of caution. Create a new thread in response.

Quote from: a

Quote

Interesting.

Quote

Interesting.

I want to point out this very sneaky feature of BBCode.

Quote from: Chris! on April 06, 2019, 2:24:48 PM

Even better would be to just not click links. Ever.

Hover over that quote.

Think about how that can be applied maliciously. Do not blindly trust quotes, either.

Quote from: suchmoon on April 05, 2019, 07:07:37 PM

Just google it...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Loyce

Tim: "Did you hear about Mike? He got cancer of the Loyce"

Quote from: akamit on April 05, 2019, 06:56:45 PM

I assume they want to stay anonymous but revealing their gender won't make a difference I believe.

Revealing gender is at minimum a single step in a binary search! That eliminates ~50% of of the sample.

Quote from: Mpamaegbu on April 04, 2019, 08:24:37 AM

Edited:
Oops! I didn't see that warning as rightly pointed out by LoyceV about posting here. I withdraw that post and will delete it as quickly as I can.

Why would you edit and write that you're going to delete it instead of deleting it outright?

Quote from: LoyceMobile on April 05, 2019, 08:45:24 AM

It's not possible within 24 hours on certain boards.
(Try it!)

A hiatus from the forum will cause some memory leaks. ^{^{Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.}}

Kicking off:

LOT 2: 0.001BTC
LOT 3: 0.001BTC
LOT 4: 0.001BTC
LOT 5: 0.001BTC
LOT 6: 0.001BTC
LOT 7: 0.001BTC
LOT 8: 0.001BTC
LOT 9: 0.001BTC
LOT 10: 0.001BTC
LOT 11: 0.001BTC
LOT 12: 0.001BTC
LOT 13: 0.001BTC

Quote from: FrancisDice on March 31, 2019, 11:39:42 PM

I bought this account, this is not me who sold these account

lol

I see you've already started with your spade. Didn't notice all the piles of dirt around.

What are police going to do about feedback on a bought account?

I wonder if non-image images work.

Altcoin boards are locked.

_{Just imagine the flooding...}

Loan Amount: 0.4
Loan Purpose: Personal investment
Loan Repay Amount: 0.592 (8%/mo * 6 mo)
Loan Repay Date: 6 months, at latest.
Type of Collateral: None
Escrow profile Link: N/A
Bitcoin Address: 37nosQnyEhXc1qFUZnZV5qf2ZHqDc3kSwu

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
actmyname on Bitcointalk is requesting a loan to the address 37nosQnyEhXc1qFUZnZV5qf2ZHqDc3kSwu of 0.4 BTC. The date is 3/19/2019.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
398Ak4oMxdPf3bWGGWDeFaNDBYB9NzvxwS
HyyCImPqVdb9dud0HranTSzTGNU7/qfURUaZcXRxYfanGfrq1ZZXt3uoOQ7SdZZ/of3qKecq/YOXsqyweLdQjb0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Quote from: kingpin4321 on March 09, 2019, 01:50:08 PM

This are quite some very strong claims by the OP on the sites in question but I would love more light to be thrown in so as for myself and individuals to be more clarified on this matter

If you don't want to read, just admit it. Otherwise, spam your signature elsewhere. It's not difficult to take a few minutes of your time to read the thread that you're reply to, especially when you post like you care... which you don't.

I would suggest that you watch your tongue lest you wish for its removal.

We needn't have any prospective usurpers birthed from your tales of fantasy...

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 11, 2019, 05:01:06 PM

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings.

I would rather more neutral-trusted individuals than ones with green trust. I would assume that users new to the forum would be more inclined to trust those that have 40: -0 / +4 than 0: 0 / +0.

Raising the standard of trust is something I would prefer, especially since this arbitrary number metric can allow ignorant users to fall prey to someone with even 10 trust (via a 10-month feedback).

Is it entirely obvious that a trust of n * 10 is (at least) n different pieces of positive feedback, which have aged for 10 months?

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 10, 2019, 10:02:00 PM

Having said all that, leaving positive feedback in return for payment is absolutely inappropriate.

As always, when extending one's hand toward another, one must exercise caution.

That's why both TMAN and I picked out words carefully as not to guarantee the absolute success of the product, merely its existence.

That being said, I believe that the number of positives that you grant should never exceed even half that of the number of negatives you have sent. Selectiveness of trust is very important.

Quote from: jamyr on March 10, 2019, 11:45:39 AM

We should never forget his mistakes but at the same time we should also take in consideration the good things hes done before.

It's not a pro/con list where you check which side has the heavier weight.

Giving someone a pass because they have done X in the past is not a very wise idea, especially in crypto.

Quote from: deisik on March 10, 2019, 05:58:42 AM

I need an answer: what do you want to have happen to Lucius?

If it's a matter of the system itself, that's up to theymos.

Remember neither negative trust nor exclusions will get rid of the feedback on your trust page.

Like I said:

Quote from: actmyname on March 09, 2019, 01:38:34 AM

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 09, 2019, 04:24:00 AM

What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

I've always agreed with the idea of a foundation for decisions in terms of trust ratings.

Where is the enforceability, though? Even in this case, for example.

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

What do you exactly want to be done?

Negative feedback can proliferate from any stream, be it a high-ranking member of a newly-created account. To someone who doesn't check the source, it's more-or-less equivalent (recognizable names may skew results).

If they do check the source, odds are that they will have read the comment and concluded that the feedback has little to do with the user's actual trustworthiness.