1) Community answer: no. Yes. Not legal or illegal.
Why have you said yes to selling trust? It is illegal indeed Are you really serious  , illegal? I think that you wanted to say "it is against the forum rules". Sell positive, negative or neutral trust is not illegal in any law of any country. However sell trusts is not real against the forum rules, but some members will give a negative trust if they will catch someone that is doing it. |
|
|
|
What? Of course bitcoin is about determining who is appropriate to be trusted. That's exactly what it's about. It's about giving the power back to the user to trust those they wish to trust and not be forced to trust those they don't wish to trust. Bitcoin does not say "You will only connect to these trusted nodes unless you configure otherwise." it says "You will connect to everyone and decide who you wish to exclude."
It does not say "You will process only these transactions that you agree with and trust."
It says "You will process all transactions unless you choose to exclude them."
If the default trust system protected you from a number of scams as a newer user, that's on you. I simply don't understand (and I admit that perhaps I am in the minority here) why people can't spot a scam. Or barring being able to spot a scam, why they don't take precautions to prevent being scammed, such as using escrow. If you were naive enough to get scammed here by these amatuer scams, then you have much larger problems. Being protected by little tin gods on a forum is only going to further your vulnerability elsewhere, as you will become reliant on the nanny system to protect you. If what you say is true, Bitcointalk DefaultTrust has done you far more harm than good. But that is a different argument we can have elsewhere if you want.
The prior system was a joke as well... the scammer tag was unevenly applied and was completely arbitrary. The "new" trust system is equally a joke, just a larger one. But let me state it again, since it seems to have been lost. I am not saying we should remove the trust system. I am saying we should remove DefaultTrust as new user enforced trusted entity. It should be removed. Everything else can remain in place and it will function MUCH better for everyone involved.
One look at the DefaultTrust network, especially at depth 2 reveals what a sham the whole system is. Many of those in tier 2 use the system as a weapon and give negative feedback that has nothing to do with trust or no trust. Heck, a fair portion of those in or previously in tier 1 have done the same thing. Tell me, how are those people any more trustworthy than a random person on the internet? The answer is, they aren't. They should not be trusted by default.
That is the point I am making. I am not saying get rid of the trust system, I'm not even saying get rid of DefaultTrust. I am saying stop making DefaultTrust enforced by default. Make it "SuggestedTrust" or something similar that a user can add if they so desire, but the trust list should be empty by default - meaning you don't trust anyone.
As a side point, and perhaps I should post this elsewhere... but what the hell. It's easy enough to get a green rating, you just seek out someone in tier 1 or 2 and do a few small trades with them. Bingo, green rating. But that's the rub - you have to trade with those in tier 1 or 2. If you just go about your business on the forum without explicitly seeking out tier 1 or 2 members (or run across them by accident), any ratings you get are irrelevant and meaningless. So again, we are back to the men in the ivory tower deciding who is trustworthy and who isn't. As long as you don't piss off the people in tier 1 and 2, you will remain neutral. If you seek to appease them, they will bestow some green upon you.
What a shitty system.
I couldn't have said it any better, i agree with this, trust system as it is now is terrible. Like you said, one would have to do trades with higher tiered users to get green rating, while everyone else you do bussiness with is almost ignored and untrusted. I have more trust in some people that have no green feedback than i do with some from default trust. Many people here have exploited the trust system in order to "rank up" their trust, and we know it. I have been here for 4 years, and yet any feedback i leave to people is still untrusted feedback, i call that BS. cheers Another real problem is that you don't know with who you are talking ... Because forum accounts are bought and sold everyday. So the trust score is not so 'real' , because you are thinking (an example) ' I am trading with this hero member , he owns a strong green trust score ... So I can trust him". A lot of users, newbie and not think in this way ... |
|
|
|
E' una cosa incredibilmente contorta, ma chi la inventata?
Theymos , se hai qualcosa di meglio apri un thread nella sezione Meta e sono sicuro che verrà implementata. In realtà depth 0 non esiste, perché se imposti il livello zero vedrai tutti i feedback sotto la sezione "untrusted feedback" (tranne quelli che tu hai lasciato - dato ad altri). Ora come ora è un po' tutta una confusione e spero che qualcuno prima o poi proponga qualcosa di più semplice. |
|
|
|
Nobody else have ordered that prepaid card? If you have ordered it, make a simple test and write here your thought! It will be more important, because you will help the other users in the choice of which prepaid 'bitcoin' card request.
Im using this card for a while and i can say it works just fine, and support is very friendly Thanks again for your opinion. Welp, Advcash has been a nitemare, so far. First their deposit process is down. Second they are extremely slow on verification. They denied me the first time because my 300dpi photos weren't good enough, and have since sent 600 dpi and full documents... Nothing... almost a whole day. they are doing some kind of scam imo, but also let me say Bit-X is better with getting bitcoin into the account, but once again these tards don't verify fast. Why the hell do these buttholes take so long? I deposited bitcoin into Advcash and after a day or so still pending. would love to get a card from both, but both do not help their business at all, IMO so far.
Gave you tried to contact both support? I know it takes 6 confirm and after your transaction is approved (or better accredited). |
|
|
|
Yes, it exists.
There are several companies with blockchain-like systems so that their employees can access and update some important data all over the world.
A blockchain (Bitcoin -but without coin) model should be decentralized and opened to ALL. If it is limited to only few people than it is not a real blockchain. Of course,I mean it is possible a blockchain without the purpose of an economic system,called coins.
Just have your own miners and using blockchain for other things
Yes of course, but in this case the coins give value to the blockchain itself. If we remove the economic part, do you really think someone will use that system? |
|
|
|
I was thinking about having some SIG AD DESIGNS done, but didn't want to waste the money if the new forum doesn't allow the old SIG AD CODES. Has this question been addressed yet?
I think the new forum software will support always the BBcode, so the various signature will be compatible. (the unique problem can be the length of how much character each sig's rank will accept). |
|
|
|
Has the *real* owner of this account received payment that is due to them from the sale of the account?
I have seen that someone has opened a dice site with the use of the yussuf89's forum account, is he the real owner or was the account sold to someone else? Dice : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1052006.0 |
|
|
|
So we can basically say : a centralized trust system is the best thing for this forum (also of it is contrary or against the bitcoin philosophy). I do not know if in the new forum software it will be used the same system or a new one. The excuse to help the new members  , there are not new members but only a lot of alt account (created by a bot to spam). |
|
|
|
That does not make the site, or site owner a charity. I don't want ANYONE thinking that, much less a sponsor.
(cough) bullshit. Take a look at the two polls you and I authored. Over 50% of the respondents said they believed your company was a charity, based on it's name alone. A person who actually cared about being mistaken for a charity would freak out at a number half that and make changes. You'll deny you are a charity when asked directly, but if a sponsor donates to you believing you are a charity, you don't correct them.  In any case, you've admitted your scam is going to be a crowd-funding one, which means you'll be holding onto a lot of people's money for future distribution. You should expect people to question who you are and why you wish to remain anonymous. Maybe he should change the 'name' of his corporation (is that a corporation?) and remove the word charity bevause I think it is a big misunderstanding and a lot of people are thinking picisi is a charity and invest some money, but it seems that it is not a real charity (or am I wrong?).
Ps: can I ask you again to say what do you want from this thread (the purpose)? The removal of Vod from the defaultTrust list? Or what? |
|
|
|
I sent him a PM. If he doesn't reply, then this is a scam. He could have replied here or via PM. It doesn't look right.
How do yo now this is a scam, the OP should try to contact him with all his personl possibility (through email, telephone, etc...). However I have seend he has received a negative trust from Quikseller, but he (LouReed) has still a green trust score  ... Where are the defaultTrust users? Waiting for proof? This thread has been open for a long time (~3 months) and LouReed has not even bothered to deny the allegations. I do think it is normally appropriate to requite proof in these kinds of threads, however after the thread has been around for some time, the person being accused should at the very least deny the allegations (or parts of it) so the accuser can provide evidence to refute such denials regarding specifics of the allegations. The OP does have positive trust from LouReed which supports a trading relationship with him. LouReed has had negative trust from me for over two weeks now and I have not receive so much as a PM attempting to resolve it (despite me being in his trust network) At this point I would say it would be appropriate to say that LouReed is guilty of the allegations against him, although they may change if he were to deny the allegations and sufficient time were to pass after such allegations when no evidence was presented Exactly, you (defaultTrust users) can left him a temporally negative trust (scam accusation against this user). You can remove that feedback when all this situation will be resolved and as quickseller said : his lack of interest to reply here is very suspocious. |
|
|
|
Can you recall someone claiming that bitcoin would break $100 or $1000, and being laughed out of town?
Here you go: Can't quote from the thread directly, since it's locked.  Quoted for you: go! go! go!
however I fear there is a strong psychological resistance at $1000... wat? $1000 BTCUSD? But we should remember it was only an high manipulation and we will not see again 1'000 dollars per bitcoin (maybe after the next block reward halving, who knows). |
|
|
|
I sent him a PM. If he doesn't reply, then this is a scam. He could have replied here or via PM. It doesn't look right.
How do yo now this is a scam, the OP should try to contact him with all his personl possibility (through email, telephone, etc...). However I have seend he has received a negative trust from Quikseller, but he (LouReed) has still a green trust score ... Where are the defaultTrust users? |
|
|
|
Please stop these useless conspiracy theories. It does not matter if Satoshi was just a regular man, CIA or NSA agent.
Bitcoin is open source; Bitcoin works and currently has no flaws. It does not matter who created it.
End of story.
bitcoin has not flaws, if you are thinking the contrary .... then please explain or better illustrate these flaws  . Remember that bitcoin was created only few years ago and it can surpass and 'destroy' the actual economic system (because it is better and more easier to use). Obviously I agree with your later point, you're preaching to the choir. In regard to flaws (and/or weaknesses), since nothing is perfect, here you go. Hmm interesting 'flaws' but bitcoin is still better (100 times more) than the actual economic system based on banks and FIAT currencies. An human cannot create something 100% perfect (this is obvious) but maybe he can reaches 99% (and remember this is still an experiment). |
|
|
|
This is not a thread about Vod, Quickseller, Dogie or any other popular whipping posts. Do not threadjack with any other person or persons or topic.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1053603.0User profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=62227Please read all of the posted thread before commenting.This issue has gone on long enough and needs resolution. I ask the user lophie to be removed from his level of Default Trust as he can not be trusted as of this point. His total lack of concern for his bad dealings with cyclops and his claim of repayment in 48 hours has long since lapsed making him ineligible for any trustful standing in this community. If you have added lophie to your trust circle and this action has added him to the Default Trust, I ask that you remove this user. Everyone has the right to trust or not trust an user, I think at the moment a good way to 'resolve' the problem is to put a '~' before his name and update your personal trust list (but you can't ask the other users to do the same, or am I wrong). This is a part of 'freedom'.... and trust system is not moderated. |
|
|
|
Is it possible, or better yet, did anyone else feel that there is need for such a thing? I often find myself in need of such an option, instead of just making
dozens of user profile bookmarks in my browser, and then reading up their posts from there..
I think option to track user (all his posts/threads) would be appreciated amung many members.
cheers
I also support your idea or request, it will be really useful to 'track' an user (and also to tag an user). |
|
|
|
All this situation has bring me to search, and I have found this post: I wouldn't trust this guy with your money, he is a two faced liar and will play the victim while he acts as the perpetrator with the other hand. He enjoys harassing people then when there are repercussions, he cries abuse at the top of his lungs to get what he wants. I wouldn't trust any donations with this user.
The Default Trust System is essentially a list of highly trusted individuals who have proved over time to be a trusted member of the bitcointalk community. Only about .0005% of bitcointalk members are on that list. Essentially they are charged with being the eyes and ears of the Administrators since the admins, staff, and mods can't be expected to see everything. ..... I think this time you will not succeed and Vod will not be removed from the Default Trust list. |
|
|
|
Please stop these useless conspiracy theories. It does not matter if Satoshi was just a regular man, CIA or NSA agent.
Bitcoin is open source; Bitcoin works and currently has no flaws. It does not matter who created it.
End of story.
bitcoin has not flaws, if you are thinking the contrary .... then please explain or better illustrate these flaws . Remember that bitcoin was created only few years ago and it can surpass and 'destroy' the actual economic system (because it is better and more easier to use). |
|
|
|
What is the purpose behind this thread?
I think 'destroy' the reputation of an user... but I do not what reputation will be destroyed or ruined (but I do not think it is necessary a thread, maybe it is better to discuss privately). Most things in BCT seem to have a sub text, but I just responded to the original post at face value: i.e. Does giving an enterprise a name/acronym containing words like "Charity" and "Philanthropy" imply that that entity is charitable and philanthropic? No, it doesn't (this is obvious). The 'enterprise' should also act and do something to prove that it is really charitable and/or philanthropic. We'll have to disagree on that then, as it's not obvious to me. I voted yes in answer to this question, given your answer above you would answer no, then?
The question is simple:
PICISI (Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, and Ideas)
Would a reasonable person look at this title and assume it was a charitable organization?
Sincerely, I have not participated to this poll. Simply, because it can be manipulated so it is better a simple post as reply (to spot all the probable alt-account). PS: but yes, most probably I would choose " Yes". |
|
|
|
Why is it not a good idea? A lot of other forums shrink the image to an appropriate size if it's too big and I think that would be a good feature here.
OP suggested 'auto crop' which isn't a good idea but your suggestion, 'auto shrink' is good. Yes, I also support the idea of 'auto-shrink' .. the crop will ruin the image (avatar) instead the auto resize or shrink can adjust the image (120*80 px). |
|
|
|
What is the purpose behind this thread?
I think 'destroy' the reputation of an user... but I do not what reputation will be destroyed or ruined (but I do not think it is necessary a thread, maybe it is better to discuss privately). Most things in BCT seem to have a sub text, but I just responded to the original post at face value: i.e. Does giving an enterprise a name/acronym containing words like "Charity" and "Philanthropy" imply that that entity is charitable and philanthropic? No, it doesn't (this is obvious). The 'enterprise' should also act and do something to prove that it is really charitable and/or philanthropic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
