This is not him. I have seen his mugshot. For one, he is much younger.
theymos was arrested? What for? I don't remember. If you really wanted to know, criminal records are public domain. Shouldn't be too hard to find out if you really care. IMO the OP is mistaken, and he is referencing another M. Marquardt. As my posting history indicates I am not the biggest Theymos fan either, so I have no reason to cover for him. His documents are out there if you bother to look. I will not be providing them though, so don't ask. The Michael MArquardt on that page is theymos, without any doubt. Same name, same age same city. I fucking hate this shit, re you fuckers really this blind that you cannot research for yourself and see the 100% unadulterated truth. I'm 100% certain Theymos is in his 20s. He isn't in the senate or congress. Could he be some other sort of government official, yeah I don't know for sure that he isn't. But I do know for certain that he isn't old enough to be a Wisconsin representative. A family member perhaps? I've seen his picture, its floating around in the original Theymos dox thread somewhere in Meta. He isn't the person you posted a picture of. I think theymos is ~26 years old (most probable) under the 30s... but it is only a supposition. PS: However, why the OP doesn't 'have' a nickname but a space  ? |
|
|
|
Thanks theymos, I have changed my password yesterday and also today... and I hope to be 'safe' (a big word) now  . XAU for his real identity, it is a lot of money.... and I do not think he is stupid (he made a soc. engir. attack... only a few people are able to do it). PS: however good luck with the search. |
|
|
|
Not sure I understand.
You're saying that discussion of bitcoin is impossible without subfora dedicated to promoting gambling, ponzis & warez?
Are these things somehow intrinsic to bitcoin?
No, I'm not saying that. But, with the subforums dedicated to gambling, ponzis, and warez, the newbies and people who don't know what they are doing are less likely to be drawn into scams since it is made abundantly clear that things in these forums could be scams and that you could lose your money. If these weren't there, then threads promoting scams would be everywhere and it would be difficult to know what a scam is, what could be a scam, or what is legit. [...] Aha. So to prevent n00bs from losing their bitcoin in a section dedicated to illegal unregistered internet gambling, theymos created a special subforum for ponzis.Not having ponzis and gambling subs on a forum created for discussion and promotion of Bitcoin simply isn't an option because? Wait.. no one is forcing you to put your bitcoin in the ponzi schemes.... this is the thing that a lot of users don't understand. He created that second trash section (yes it is only a trash...) to collect all the useless thread and I suggest always the users "don't take part to those ponzi schemes". |
|
|
|
I have a feeling we will be seeing a lot of hacked accounts in the near future (abandoned but high ranked accounts for example). Stay alert guys!
Yeah I've seen some old accounts just started posting again today after years of not being used  . Which ones? Maybe a list should be compiled, though what Quickseller said in another thread will also be relevant that many older inactive members will be likely to return to change their passwords by the email they received from theymos. Exactly, it could be a possibility but we should stay always on alert.... why an old member should make a trade after his return here in the forum? This is the suspicious thing. Like someone told here in this thread, ask always a signed message from a bitcoin address and PGP key. |
|
|
|
Another useless thread, this forum is more better and awesome (every day) and the soc. engir. attack was really impressive.
How is it useless?all you need to know is in OP, theymos works for state legislatures. What is the problem if he is working for the gov. or he is not working for them ? Everyone is free do use or not use this forum, and no one is forcing you to post here . Have a great day. ...
It got a little off-topic.
Exactly.... |
|
|
|
|
Another useless thread, this forum is more better and awesome (every day) and the soc. engir. attack was really impressive.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I have some accounts for sale
offer please
List will be updated.
#1
90+ activity
Activity is increasing by posting, which means you can reach full member in few minutes
#2
same as account #1
Do you have a signed message of each forum account or not? I think with these last facts it will be really hard sell an account without the own bitcoin signed message. |
|
|
|
I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.
Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time. It does not matter what it should be, it matters how it is. Most people just use default trust and rely on positive trust scores to judge someone here.'Not exactly' when you register a new account you notice that the trust list contain only the DefaultTrust user (it is an automatic thing). So yes most people use DefaultTrust because they feel 'it' correct but it is not always good... see the few people removed in the last months. PS: it is matter what theorically should be... I always check the history of an user before trade with him (Also if he has +400 as trust score, it doesn't matter .... whne the majority of users will start to think in this way I am sure there will not be scammed users anymore). |
|
|
|
This is what I see:  I also noticed this fact yesterday, but I thought it was only my problem... so is it related with the forum software not with our OS or browser? |
|
|
|
Well, I see it as 141: -0 / +17 and not 263.You have probably added few members to your trust list, that's why you see a bigger number and I see a smaller number.  I do not know, this is his trust list (or what I see depth 1):
CrazyGuy
Unacceptable
kano
Cablez
davecoin
iluvpcs
crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
Swimmer63
buysolar
SilentSonicBoom
TookDk
Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
stex2009
Stratobitz
Blazedout419
MoreBloodWine
BITMAIN
crowetic
pcfli
Zoomhash_michael
SDRebel
wlefever
nicehashand you trust only DefaultTrust, or am I wrong? |
|
|
|
I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.
Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time. |
|
|
|
This : ??? is a valid score in the new algorithm.
...
|
|
|
|
with new green feedback system , even proven scammers are having green trust ratings under their username, and they can scam users again using their green trust ratings Not exactly, an user should not see only the 'trust score'  but also check the user's history and use always an escrow if he does not trust the other part. |
|
|
|
|
@marcotheminer,
I have changed the signature but not the bot says "signature deleted" ... can you fix it ? today I should get the payment... thanks.
|
|
|
|
It looks like no matter what if the last feedback you receive is negative then you will either have a ?? ? Trust score or a negative score. Look at TECSHARE for example, his rating from Vod means he has a question mark rating.
Also TF has a negative 9999 rating lol.
not always I have seen users who received both positive and negative feedbacks and still has black trust ratings with first number 0 For example: my trust. No I don't think:  |
|
|
|
??? is a valid score in the new algorithm.
...
Then at least he doesn't have a "negative" trust red score but a pink one ... really cool. Thanks again for the reply. |
|
|
|
There are some useful changes, but the first score needs to be rescaled. It varies too much if one trust is added or removed. Makes anyone in Default trust much more powerful and those outside it more worthless.
Muhammed Zakir's rating shows as ???
Yes:  It is a bug.... theymos can surely fix it. |
|
|
|
More information here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0don't want to click the link, here the post: The trust score numbers are now slightly different: - The first number is the trust score. - The second number is the number of unique users who have given that person negative feedback. - The third number is the number of unique users who have given that person positive feedback. - The fourth number was removed. I also completely changed the trust score algorithm to this: if there are no negative ratings
score = 0
for each rating, oldest to newest
if this rater has already been counted
continue
score += min(10, round_up(months since rating))
else
score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
if score >= 0
start_time = time of first negative
score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time
if(score < 0)
return ??? (orange)
move score to range [-9999,9999]
return score This algorithm is a little slower than the previous one. Post here if you think you see extra slowness due to this change. Maybe I need to add extra caching to compensate. Also post here if someone has a trust score that seems wrong. I was going to change it so that everyone with 0 trust had orange trust, but I decided that this looked bad and changed it back. |
|
|
|
|
I also want to say thanks for this improvement, we will see in the next days what the community think about
|
|
|
|
|
It was happened also to me, but not everything was fixed ... I hope theymos will give us a clarification (if it is possible).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
