Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize  ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?). Imho it would be decentralization. Just compare with the current status: a couple of hand-picked high rank users are in the default trust list and they are "the police". That's centralized. If the change will happen, less ranks will add feedback indeed, but the feedback will count more than the current "untrusted" feedback. Much more people's feedback will count and the only condition is that you are "old enough" in this forum. Which imho is closer to decentralization. Decentralized trust system (it could never exist) everyone can leave a trust and each trust is worth in the same way. allow less users to left trust is closer to a sort of centralization  not the contrary. However the Blazr request is very good in my honest opinion, please remove the scores and much important the 'warning'.... |
|
|
|
Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.
That will be discriminatory against the honest newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end). I agree it is discriminatory. However, a lot of voices ask for newbie jail and such. Also, we all know how many lower rank users are created only for spam or scam. And.. there are plenty of high rank users that can help out the honest newbie in such cases. There default trust members that actually do that currently. It may not be the best way, but as you said it nicely: it will decentralize the trust system. Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?). |
|
|
|
price will rise when people notice about bitcoin price ticker and learn bout bitcoin how it works
maybe yes... maybe no... Who knows? I think it is only a question of speculation and high manipulation. The price will not raise due a good news it is most probable that it will dump due a bad news . |
|
|
|
Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.
So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?
Actually it's a VERY GOOD idea. People will learn to look and check all the feedback and decide which deserves to be taken into account and which not. Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.That will be discriminatory against the honest newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin gets a price ticker on New York Stock Exchange and the price does not move?  I really do not understand how is this possible. I am glad to see BTC is going to become a classic stock market traded commodity, like oil, gold or corn. However, all these commodities are EXTREMELY sensible to good/bad news. BTC, still nothing. I know it s still too early to think this way since traders have not invested into BTC to be able to move the price due to these great news but still, not a single $1, price increase, not a single one. I think it is not more a question of news... if the price should go up, then it will be only for an high manipulation. The 'rule' buy on rumors is not valid here in the bitcoin world anymore . (remember the Paypal news, etc... ). The unique internal thing that will pump the price would be the halving... nothing else. |
|
|
|
Quoted as form of security.
Quickseller, what the hell? Why did give a loan without a valid collateral? 0.15 btc is not an 'high' sum and I am sure you thought "it was a Sr. member, why not"  . I hope he will repay you as soon as possible and I have also left him a negative trust. |
|
|
|
Fixed the title for you : I will take 'scam' a loan of 0.3 . A small percentage
Really amazing, you have created this forum account only to scam the community... I think you deserve a negative trust (but I am sure no one will trust you with 0.30 btc ). Pay attention guys, don't lend him btc without a valid collateral (because a facebook profile it is not a collateral). |
|
|
|
Ive seen way too many people posting on the lending section asking for a loan, obviously, without collateral and yes i know some of them are just scammers and know what they are doing but there are also newbies that dont know what collateral is and they just fill the section with useless threads. My idea is to give a warning when you click create new thread on the lending section that shows you a few links to the rules and whats a collateral, what do you guys think?
The problem (not real a problem) is that staff doesn't moderate scam or scam attempt so everyone should trade with his own diligence. If someone is scammed with all the information topic in the lending section, that it is not a fault of the forum but it is his fault. PS: the newbie should read all the forum rules (and I am sure that they don't read them). |
|
|
|
|
Basically I agree with @tspacepilot , tha phrase "trade with extreme caution" should be changed to another one.,.. Because we have seen that a lot of people have received a negative trust also if the didn't trade (so what is the purpose of trust system If someone receive a negative trust and there is not a trade involved?).
PS: it is better to change it in a generic warning phrase.
|
|
|
|
Wait: "US Senate candidate Jack Lindblad has voiced his own theories on what he believes is real reason behind the brutal attacks in Paris, claiming that the killings were not the work of terrorists but of the US and Mossad in a bid to keep Israel’s current Prime Minister in power.
Also they can spread terrorism, who knows... Not all the fake muslims, or other person from the various religion. |
|
|
|
Hi, I would like to request an admin or a Moderator to confirm the password change on this account(Twipple) on and around 31st January. https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php only shows logs till around April 19th . Thank you. Would a password being changed prove that ownership changed? Please don't bother commenting on the issue when you know nothing about it. I have already sent him the PM proof. Best for you to stay out of it, unless it relates you in anyway. In the SecLog appears only the 'last 30 days' and it is normal, but why have you opened a thread about your personal matter? I think it would be better a PM to an admin, the normal mod can't confirm. |
|
|
|
put your account as collateral or something else i can give you 0.03 asap .
or talk with your signature campaign to send 0.03 to me .
no ty. there is people that will give me loan without collateral so there is no point of leaving my campaign and account for now i dont need that loan that much that i give account as collateral. if i get it then ok if not ill wait till i get from signature  (tomorrow) Why do you need the loan for 2 weeks if you are getting a payment tomorrow? becuse this btc will be used for trading and this campaign will be invested Btc sent : https://blockchain.info/tx/3cd59a4fb1e88df38f4e2cca5f6588656240d5843714e7991af12ffcadb52774Repay here 1GkGt3218AM8FU7ZGDCeZS4LWZR8xeZcjf Thanks. |
|
|
|
Looking for .04
For AffilIate work similar to my one in my first couple threads here
Until FRIDAY
14skLBU9dDM823fsySKd8yFEzWkoEPjfPg
Can give this account as collaterall
And/or a very established local bitcoin account
I think your account is not worth 0.04 btc, can you provide another 'valid collateral'? |
|
|
|
Went and looked, I'm on default trust, depth 2. The standard I'm guessing.
No, you're not. Why would that be a standard? You're not on the default trust list. That is just more evidence of your badly set up trust settings. I never change my trust setting and I saw mrklye has green light on his trust. 1:-4/ +3(3)It is very strange, this is my trust list:
~Vod
DefaultTrust
~EALand this is the trust score of MRKLYE : -5: - 4/ +3(3) |
|
|
|
I really laugh when people say " bitcoin is not worth anything, it is only a joke" . But why it is used for these illegal and expensive things  , really insane... and those people should "be silent" because they do not know what they are saying. |
|
|
|
.... I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now. The problem now is : we should ask gmaxwell or Gavin (or the other people that are in the image) ... who is NickSzabo4. This for me it is the real question, not who is Satoshi Nakamoto (a different question). .... Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger. And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk) But Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto ... this why I have said "it or he is not related". I know he is the first person that have received a btc through a transaction... |
|
|
|
I think he is saying, that all the ugly nerds sitting at this table are involved in cryonics together with the guy from Grateful Dead and they are all Satoshi Nakamoto, right Bruno?
Well now, I'm starting to get really confused. One of them could possibly be Satoshi Nakamoto? I don't think so. Again the same question, why is cryonics involved in this kind of discussion on finding who is the person behind Satoshi? It is not involved, I think they are talking about Hal Finney but this is not related with Nick Szabo (the one in the image) and neither Satoshi Nakamoto ... |
|
|
|
Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.
His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.
Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.
You are still a scammer and the negative will remain. Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life. It only means that for Quickseller... the user worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system). A lot of people still have me in their trust list and even more have me in their trust network. My feedback is far from worthless. Yes of course, but the newbie users etc have only the DefaultTrust list (depth 2). Is this a problem for you? However I think the purpose of this thread is ended ... Because the negative trust is not under the trusted section (so , worhiper_-_ who cares?) anymore (default trust). |
|
|
|
Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.
His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.
Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.
You are still a scammer and the negative will remain. Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life. It only means that for Quickseller... the user worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system). |
|
|
|
Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.
So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?
Good idea, but a score would be exist always (as part of trust system). I do not think your idea will be added or realized (because also without trust scores the users will not go checkout the trust profile). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
