Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion. If one or more reports went unhandled for a long time, it's either: a) A bunch of moderators looked into the case no one was sure whether the report warranted action b) The report requires in-depth understanding of the discussion, the situation at hand and /or access to data unavailable to regular moderators before an action is made. Glancing over the title and posts of that thread, this seems to be scenario b). While I'm not implying that this is such a situation, when it comes to assessing accusations, quite often said accusations are based off of circumstancial, speculative and / or flimsy evidence. While different moderators might place the bar of required sophistication of evidence at slightly different heights, in quite a few cases the only ones who can (with reasonable certainty) confirm or deny the allegations are the admins since they have access over tools no one else on staff has (e.g. checking IPs) and in the case of theymos, the head admin, have the authority of the final word on everything related to Bitcointalk moderation. You are indeed correct, this case is b). However, the evidence being adequate here is not the case and certainly not if you factor in OP's track record. Regarding the off-topic posts, the only thing that got deleted so far is my own on-topic post in which I criticize the lack of moderation too. Looks like lack of transparency has huge downsides, as only theymos and Cyrus can see who this was. Maybe it is time for some changes? You yourself could be oblivious to other moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements due to lack of this (as far as I know you can not see who handled the report either). |
|
|
|
Ya know... I don't appreciate anti-semitism, so I will change it to a neutral, ok? Jesus, your are a whiny bitch.... Stop getting drunk and posting shit you regret.  Give neutral for that, give negative for death threat.
/thread. |
|
|
|
I handed bitcointalk.org over to theymos because; I trust him and his judgement, and I was not really active on the forum anyway. You can question my trust all you like, but I have been in a position for a long time to screw over you guys if I wanted too, but I didn't. Some users will instinctively understand that and ignore the nonsense you're spouting off, others will get sucked in, but either way I don't really care and I'm going to continue to do my best to help Bitcoin succeed.
How about you take yourself away from the position rather than boasting how you could but didn't do evil? Quite the accomplishment, only if you are actually evil. Thankfully your reputation is damaged beyond repair (it is nowhere near where it was a couple years back), and can only get worse given your failure to comply to the greater good. Absence of evil is not proof of good. |
|
|
|
The fact that anyone can be tricked is why it's so much more important for people who will be perceived to be an authority to make an extra effort to not get tricked or just not play along. So I think here the issue isn't so much that wright tricked him, it's that he shouldn't have been exposed in the first place, and that to this day he still has do little to nothing to walk back the damage. Wright suckers still continue to cite his equivocation as evidence to support wright. I think Ver is one of the less ethical people around cryptocurrency, and yet even Ver did better and eventually provided an unequivocated statement against wright's claims.
And yet I still have people who quack around telling me that Gavin is trustworthy around here, many things are backwards. The very very least that he should have done after all this nonsense got exposed was apologize and retract his statements (if not condemn Wright too). Ergo, not trustworthy. |
|
|
|
It's funny to hint I'm malicious or untrustworthy, despite managing these domains for years without any wrongdoing. I remember when these same people were hinting at me eventually turning bitcoin.org into a Bitcoin Cash site, yet it never happened, but it didn't stop them scaremongering and screaming about it like it was inevitable. Now here people are, hinting at some vague notion of me being untrustworthy, despite me safely and without incident handing the domain over to theymos. I think this is a problem with some people on this forum in general, they just assume everyone is malicious and some scammer, unless said user is in their clique.
The truth is, while you are spinning up nonsense and trying to spook people and smearing bitcoin.org's reputation, we are educating tens of thousands of new users each day. Millions of users learn about Bitcoin with us yearly, we send so much traffic to exchanges and wallets it's ridiculous, all of which translates into expanding the Bitcoin community. When you measure the objective good Bitcoin.org has done for Bitcoin over many years, it becomes really hard to trash it. You can find flaws in the best of people, MLK was a plagiarist, Gandhi was a racist in his youth, Mandela literally blew up civilians, but judgements about people and entities are generally done by subtracting some abstract idea of total good by total bad.
With respect to Greg's comments, I don't really know what he's hinting at either. My interactions with Greg have bounced between courteous and hostile over the years. I'm really confused by his response. I would hazard a guess that he generally doesn't trust me, and that he prefers bitcoin.org be owned by someone he's associated more intimately with.
How about you give up singular control to shared control by known and honest individuals such as Wladimir, harding and others? Oh right, we have tried this before and you refused. There is absolutely not a single valid good reason (opposite of evil in this context) why you would not want to do this. Purely virtuous you are, surely I am mistaken.
Not a post worth meriting. I have no particular feelings other than Cobra's proclamations seem to come from several different people depending on the time of day, or lunar cycles. I'd rather someone that erratic, or easily rented out, is nowhere near controlling an important resource.
Correct. For quite some time I have spent giving out the following consultations to both individuals and companies (in order of severity and danger): Do not use or touch: BSV website, the Bcash website, Bitcoin.org. |
|
|
|
How about the time he outed himself manipulating the public with multiple identities? In fairness, I don’t think it’s ipso facto wrong to use multiple identities. (Cypherpunk here.) The question is of intent. I am much more worried by his equivocation over Btrash, of which I was hereto unaware due to my having slept for almost two years. Equivocation is always a bad sign. It was never my intention to do so, but I would strongly argue that you do not want somebody doing that (very unlikely for virtuous reasons) to be the sole owner and responsible person for Bitcoin.org. No, just no. |
|
|
|
There are big supply problems in local section.
Stop lying and GTFO already. You are the definition of evil like many other people you associate with. Stop trust farming, stop gaming the system, stop shitposting only when you are in a signature campaign, and then forward 5 years into the future and you can be considered for anything. Then who will send merit for useful members in turkish local?
For example, mindrust from turkish board, and he is not from such gang
You have answered your own question. The only reason mr. Kalemdar wants this is that he can distribute more merit to his friends for further attempting the DT system. Guess what: DT or not, OP you can forget good signature campaigns. |
|
|
|
The current forum staff seems to be ICO/ANN bumping friendly, also off-topic and derailment friendly. I would exercise caution reporting really unless this changes sooner rather than later.  You have to call down and be patient. Reports will be sent to moderators according to algorithm if the forum that we don't know. Moderators after receiving reports need time to investigate and handle them. Sometimes reports sent to moderators by the forum machine but moderators are responsible for those reports are inactively on the forum for a few days. They can not handle reports when they don't log in accounts and don't have time.
Two days are not too long, and reports are handle in queue.
I guess accuracy rate is for handled reports, not for total reports that include unhandled ones.
What exactly is there to investigate? Look at the case he linked, it takes about 2 - 5 minutes to conclude you have to permaban both accounts.  |
|
|
|
Next step: Cøbra to give up access to Bitcoin.org. Do you believe that theymos and Cøbra should have attempted to maintain a connection between the sites or the operations?
Essentially nobody trusts Cøbra except theymos and maybe a couple of bamboozled individuals. There is a reason for this, and there is a reason why many here have praised Cøbra when he has appeared here before: It is called ignorance. I'm really sad to hear this. It seems like bitcoin faces such tremendous headwinds. Surely, I do not understand enough to understand the significance of your comments. I don't get it either. Please elaborate gmaxwell. Most of the high ranking individuals on this forum today have next to no clue about anything Bitcoin related really (writing tech support answers based on what you find online is a triviality not knowledge). Under user's avatar, there is: News: Latest Bitcoin Core Release: <-- Will download url be changed with bitcointalk.org instead of bitcoin.org ? I don't think so. And I wouldn't download Bitcoin Core anywhere else than Bitcoin.org anyway. Again: Wrong. You should download Bitcoin Core only from https://bitcoincore.org. Please stop giving bad information on Core related matters. Thanks.
How about the time he outed himself manipulating the public with multiple identities?  |
|
|
|
-quote snip-
Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?
If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case. Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion. |
|
|
|
I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.
It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word. I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam. Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.
Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.
<...>
That's already covered by the list of rules since it: 1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours. 2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin. 3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic) Here are the corresponding rules: 2. No off-topic posts.
<...>
13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]
14. All altcoin related discussion belongs in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's child boards. [3][4][e]
15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways. [6][e]
<...>
Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.
I might try to work the "you can only incentivize posting in a Games and Rounds topic" into the rules at some point, but I'm not sure whether I should do so and if I should, how to do so properly because each rule added bloats the thread to the point where it becomes useless for the average casual user (the audience this thread was aimed at in the first place). Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them? |
|
|
|
What about RegulusHr ??
He is not good enough?
You can start sending PM thanks to all the global moderators, then Cyrus and then theymos for their unbiased way of handling the forum. Disappointing. |
|
|
|
His major concern is about me not following some edited rules instead of tagging scammer and supporting that flags.
It is just disgusting.
He is either become sick throughout the years which would be very unfortunate, or he was always actually quite morally evil and has only recently shown his true face. You can choose which version you wish to believe. |
|
|
|
ThatsABity trying to protect IOTA community and IOTA fundation against some questions of me... I think, this person dangerous and supports scammers - since many years!!!
If somebody wants to take a look, here's the profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1006152. If it turns out to be the case (I need time to evaluate), I will tag and flag him too. |
|
|
|
Thank you for taking the time and effort to find more accounts to cheat in signature campaigns. This ensures fairness for other bounty hunters. As far as I know, there are many people who cheat by using multiple accounts for Twitter and Facebook campaigns. But they will use many different wallets to avoid being detected. This will take a long time to find these fraudster. Thank you for your hard work making the bounty campaign fair for more people.
What the heck? Tell me that you're just being sarcastic. Which part of the user's statement would be sarcastic? Entering any campaign with more than 1 account (rules or not) is means that the individual doing so is depriving somebody else of the opportunity (fully or partially) which is wrong in itself. |
|
|
|
I received the same, and most bothering was: I kindly request you to remove the negative trust from our account and maybe add a positive one.
|
|
|
|
There is only one answer to this bullshit update and their research:
This 'garbage' will be the standardized IOT trust layer in a few years, and you will be still here crying at every project not in your pocket.
Get rekt. Idiot.
QFR. |
|
|
|
Good case finding. If I remember correctly I was arguing against this here, and this user is definitely much more contributing than the one linked in the topic. |
|
|
|
Good attempt at pocketing some merit. I wouldn't donate it unless there is a way to confirm that any of his relatives have access to the funds. It would be a waste if you donate it while knowing that the funds will be lost.
Answer was always obvious. |
|
|
|
Sorry for busting your bubble, but I don't think the above message or account is in anyway related to me. Sounds about right given your lying habits: What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?
I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.
As I said, that was the only level of contents I could produce on the forum back then to reach my atlcoin signature bountys post requirements weekly
OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then.
Ok, yes they were targeted reviews but as I said I use to follow many ICOs back then on telegram
Again funny for you, I already agreed I was involved in posting for ICOs and following them even on telegram, which I left when I got to know it is forbidden on the forum.
I agreed being paid, please read the above info.
I agreed about my involvement in the service and me not been engaged in it from long time, as soon as I was aware of the rules around it and I even discouraged such practices thereafter.
They are not alts connections as you try to frame it here, they are just simple one side ETH transactions, and it doesn't prove I own those accounts or have anything solid to do with them.
none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions. The accounts are not connected to me or I am not much aware about the info of the owners of those addresses.
Yes there are transactions between me and those accounts. Marking it red and violate doesn't indicate anything other than me being in business with them around 600 days ago. I worked with this type of services back then, which I have accepted many times in this exact thread.
I have done business with them and I am not obligate to explain each and every transaction from my wallet ( most of them I don't even remember ) also, that doesn't prove anything more than me paying or receiving funds from them and you repeating the same question again and again like a dump.
Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service
Let me see if I got all this right : " I was not involved in any kind of paid promotion" "I agree it looks like bump but I was filling my signature post count" "Ok, they were targeted reviews" "I agreed being payed" "I don't have anything with those accounts, those are one side transactions" "I have no idea who are owners of those accounts" "Yes, those are transactions between me and those accounts, I did some business with them" " Yes, I was involved in bumping business and many users worked AROUND me" Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
