I don't care to argue with you over the definition. The source was released well ahead of time and announced. There was a problem that resulted in more coins than expected being mined, but they were fair game to everyone. The developers decided it wouldn't be good for the health of the blockchain or to incentive users or whatever else, so they gave away coins.

Not an instamine in my opinion. Ask 100 users and you'll get some that say it was and wasn't an instamine. Therefore, it is not an absolute fact and within reason that Lauda would share a similar conclusion that I came to.

I don't care about Lauda, and have nothing to do with their reputation. You ask me if left is right, and I said no, and for that I'm defending someone's character? No, I just think its reasonable to say that Lauda was not lying in this very particular case.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.0

This seems to corroborate, I just read the first 10 pages and it seems to be genuine.

I believe that saying it was not an instamine is a fair opinion.

We don't understand each other, we've already established that. You use a lot of words like, deliberate, observable, fact, and scam, but in the end your usage of these words seems to be majorly your opinion. Feedback is for your opinions.

I see you as attempting to force everyone to be financially responsible for their opinions.

Instamine isn't a scam, its just in my opinion a bad business practice. Again, could you not verify that an instamine occurred easily enough? If we are going to blame Lauda for that, I'd also like you to hold people that say, "X is going to the moon" responsible when it doesn't.


I'm not sure how you are judging a danger level. How does someone who stole from an exchange compare to someone who created a pyramid scheme? Just deal with whoever you are comfortable dealing with. All of the drama is unnecessary.

My facetiousness may have gone too far. No, I would not actually refuse to trade with someone due to their preference of citrus, but the point still stands. Any information that can be used by another user should be on someone's feedback page. I don't care personally care about account selling, others take it very seriously. I have a major problem with people that disclose PMs and, others do not. My whole point with the lemon example that I've carried on for.... 5 years now is that as long as information that you leave on someone's trust page is accurate, its fine. If my lemon thing doesn't seem reasonable to you, perhaps something you feel strongly about doesn't seem reasonable to me. As long as feedback that you leave is accurate, individuals can choose what is and isn't reasonable and whether it is worthy of consideration when trading.

I glanced at your link, and have no idea what your claim is. I maintain that the only "scam" ICO or Alt coin is one that contains malware. Anything else is just a bad investment. How does one possibly lie about a premine? You can view the source code, check the blockheight, use a block explorer if one exists, etc.

By the way, I still have some Solidcoins and Tenebrix leftover if you are looking for a sure investment.

I find you making light of my lemon prejudices unfair. If people can refuse to do business with someone because of their political affiliation, religious views, race, or sexual preference, why can't I refuse to do business with someone because of their opinion on a fruit that I may or may not have mental trauma about as a result of numerous choking scares.

Flag one should be worded slightly differently in my opinion, but if you read the original announcement regarding flags


It spells out that flags aren't for general warning signs. Each person can describe shady or potentially dangerous behavior on a person's feedback, for example dishonesty, aggressive behavior, vindictiveness, fondness for lemons. Those things fall under #1 on Theymos' list about getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness. I like to simplify it by thinking of what type of behavior would keep me from patronizing someone's restaurant. Flags are more directly related to business. If someone is selling illegal product keys in the digital section, you may put a newbie warning stating, "This person is selling illegal keys" you may not have personally been damaged, but I think its fair to say that the keys could become invalidated or other repercussions could occur. In that case you can't flag using flag option #2 or #3, but #1 applies.

As for your hypotheticals, I'm very aware of some of the situations. Some of them I'm not so I can't comment. I don't agree with your assessments on some of the situations, so overall, I'd say more that Lauda may deserve red feedback, but not flags.

You don't get a flag for lemons, you get negative feedback. To your original question, the answer is flag #1.




The "with me" and "damages" part is pretty important for flags #2 and #3. If you didn't personally lose money, then only flag #1 is appropriate.

Smart Readers read inductive reactive power as well as your regular power draw. Its an excuse to bill you more.


Run the numbers yourself about wave properties before you go off and running taking your valid concerns about 80Ghz 5G and making it less credible with the "wifi conspiracy".
Wifi's energy is too low to do any harm. Anyone that tries to spin it another way is trying to start paranoia just for the sake of a laugh. Don't listen to me or anyone else, just calculate whether the waves can penetrate skin or are the right size/have enough energy to ionize.

If wifi is scary, avoid running electricity through copper wires in your home, bananas, the sun, and granite counter tops at all costs. Theres a lot of natural atmospheric radiation, sleeping with a wifi router next to your bed is many orders of magnitude less exposure than taking a walk outside.

You can continue to attempt to return it if you'd like, at the end of the day its up to you. If its going to keep you awake at night, you can try harder to return it. Their customer service is an agent for the company, they have authority granted by the company to act on its behalf. If the agent gave you bad advice, the company can fire the customer service rep, but I can't imagine they can get mad at you considering you made a good faith effort to return the money and fix their mistake.

But again, at the end of the day, if its morally bothering you, continue on with your attempt to fix it. Thousands of BTC aren't worth your peace of mind. If its a large sum, consult a lawyer if you are worried about legal repercussions and not moral ones.

I will miss you pal. We didn't interact much and I could never tell if you were kidding in all of your posts. If you were you did a really good job and followed through with your crazy with videos and pictures that showed you were willing to put the effort in. I use the term crazy as lovingly as possible.

Great, the score was meaningless before anyway. How does one rate how trustworthy someone is on a scale from -999 to 400ish? I don't know what the upper positive trust scale was. I don't think you should get a number for being an alleged liar or successfully trading 1000BTC. I think whoever is going to trade with you should decide the validity of the claim themselves and how much they are willing to trust you with.

The color doesn't matter either, why should green, red, or heliotrope tell you who is trustworthy. Just read a person's feedback and you'll get all of the info you want. I'm against the go ahead and trade recklessly if you see green, or avoid at all costs if you see red mentality that seems to have accidentally been cultivated here. I've traded with actual scammers in the past. You just use escrow. I've requested escrow be used with deep green trusted members. Numbers, scores, and reassuring colors just numb your gut feeling.

Sure, lets add QS to DT1, maybe then you'll feel better when they get a PM sent about them from Theymos for misusing the new system. I have really come to loath the use of the word factual or its derivatives on Bitcointalk. We have a difference of opinion on the definition of what constitutes a warning. if I cared or you cared, we could discuss this further, but you are right we aren't going to come to an agreement and there is no point in wasting our time continuing.



This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why. I'm now free to leave people positive or negative feedback for lemons. I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information.

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is a step towards the system that I've been preaching all along while somewhat (and I emphasize somewhat) defending your past feedback. Leaving feedback is a good thing. There are a lot of considerations people may or may not care about when deciding to trade with someone. All Theymos did was separate more severe scam accusations to flags, and freed up the space for people to put more subjective things as regular feedback. Subjective feedback isn't necessarily bad as long as you don't misrepresent it. If you want to tag Quickseller for being a liar, some percentage of the forum might agree with that feedback and decide to take your claim to heart. Others wont, and thats perfect, users forming their own opinions by reading and weighing feedback is the most fair system in my opinion. The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

That is sort of where we are at. If Quickseller didn't take your money, then they deserve feedback not a flag.

I'm not following. Who is doing the selective enforcement if not Theymos? Why is it qualified to be selective if not from a position of implied authority?


I'm saying that as Quickseller is not on DT. As far as feedback goes, Quickseller who is not on DT has the same weight as anyone else not on DT. You are on DT, so your feedback matters more, therefor it was more pressing a matter to point out whatever you did rather than whatever Quickseller did in the case that you both did the exact same thing at the exact same time.

As far as you being allowed to flag him, if I'm understanding, the problem is that you used are improperly using the new flag system. Feedback is for people who haven't contractually scammed you, people that are untrustworthy ie, liars, account farmers, people who like lemons. Flags are for people who have stolen money from you put simply.

Does Theymos get involved in scam accusations? No. Does Theymos get involved in Scam accusations towards staff members? Probably. >>> Same situation


As pointed out earlier, Inaba doesn't have a flag yet. Is that because they don't deserve it? No, its because people prioritize when they make actions and which to take first.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

Agreed, you did the morally right thing in attempting to return the money. If they decide they don't want it back, you have no further obligation to return it.

incredibly relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzmnUf36wzA&t=0m15s

It was meant to be sarcasm, I figured you'd pick up on it immediately. And yeah, thats my point. Just because staff members may be coincidentally involved, doesn't mean Theymos is funneling orders down and forcing DT staff or otherwise to obey. Theymos sent a PM asking people to reevaluate their choice, you have sent people PMs asking them to reevaluate their choice, other DT members have done so as well. Because Theymos is distant and there is no impending hammer, it is not selective enforcement by staff or otherwise.

Fine, Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on legendary members that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

My point was that you got the attention of Theymos because you are in the position to get it. Any other member on DT doing the same thing would have also gotten the same PM sent.

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

I can at least confirm that otrkid1970 knew details of a trade that happened between otrkid70 and myself over five years ago with details that are not available to the public and that would be very unlikely be deduced with what little public information is available.

I'm not sure what its worth, but hopefully it'll contribute towards you gathering enough evidence to make a convincing case.

I don't know that it would help you at all, but neither of us publicly posted anything about our trade, it was all done through PM. Shoot me a PM with what we traded in as much detail as you can, and I'd be happy to try to help you verify your ownership.