Due to the fact that a lot of bounty managers just simply don't check, those users most likely thought that they could leverage some other person's profiles into a reward for themselves. I believe this is probably a common occurrence.

Not only are you not a Sr. Member or above, but you also decide to remove the (Must be SegWit) part and insert a non-segwit address.

Not hearsay by part of the accusatory account, no. Perhaps I should clarify. It's hearsay from the user who sent it to the ICO-bumping buster account. Mysterious01.



At least one of those users, (i.e. endlasuresh) has complained. It really shouldn't be a "tag first and ensure innocence later" method to dealing with hearsay evidence.

An absence of refutation doesn't show guilt.

My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.

As I have said, the users that I had posted in the code block were listed from a PM from a different user. There has been no definitive proof of linkage between them and the one that is promising ICO bumping. This is relying on hearsay at best.

You can feel free to start a discourse about this if you want to argue toward the side of tagging vs. not.

Your neg was literally based on hearsay evidence. It's inadmissible. I went ahead and checked just now.

---

In fact, none of those users from the single PM where one user mentioned a team should be given a negative without hard evidence.

Here's the list of names:


If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.

You're back... hm. :/

---

What topic?

---

No. Two of the members that you mentioned above take no part in ICOs or bounties. At all. Even if it were the case merit has nothing to do with any hiring process. Reputation does.

---

I think it's interesting how you claim we send merit to one another.

My profile: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=actmyname
The Pharmacist: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist
Vod: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Vod
Lauda: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda

None of the "gang" appear on the "send sMerit" section.

It's obviously a typo, as evidenced by the thread title. Though, to be fair, if someone doesn't even take the time to double-check their post and include necessary details (i.e. purpose or reason for absence of purpose), then it's unlikely that it's legitimate.

This is an overarching statement but I believe it's ill-advised to tag those that are on the SMAS list. There were a number of users that were tagged because of this and the reason given was something along the lines of "likelihood of having alts" rather than a concrete reason.

Simply being blacklisted is not something that should warrant a tag.

---

There were also a few opinionated negs that were sent out, to which I did not echo.

This is the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5023833.0

LoyceV has a thread in Reputation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5045649.0

---

This one is updated with ~2000 members. No need to manually enter them in yourself.

So I'm only going to take from these few because I didn't want to look too far for all your questions and concerns.

These can only be answered by dean so I have no place in the matter.

It was, though. The details were listed out in the ICO.
Every quarter, on the 3rd. (September, December, March, June)

---

The matter of price adjustment based on coin value was already detailed (i.e. snapshot at end of ICO of coin prices) as a hedge to crypto variance.

---

---

Just something to note, have you looked into parallels between BK and BitDice?

I am waiting for the "sufficient info and documents" or proof thereof. Blanket statements do nothing for you.

FWIW, I'm going to take a look at accounts 1000-1300. I have some free time today so that should at least help to mitigate the dam-breaking of a scam wave.

EDIT: First 100 done.
EDIT[2]: First 200 done.
EDIT[3]: All 301 done.

A few of the ratings I actually don't agree with. I let those accounts be.

how you gonna ignore/remove that segwit message

Are you going to publicize those reasons or are we to believe that they are reasonable purely off the merit of your word?

---

I do not see why you could not have made up something in order to try and dispel the negative feedback. Especially considering the fact that you ceased communication abruptly.

(somewhat related)

5) Lenders should designate the value of a bitcointalk account as 0 for collateral purposes. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

There is only one difference between a zero-collateral loan and a bitcointalk-collateral loan. That being, in the case of a default, the account has no chance of being used by the scammer again.

Given this, why do people ignorantly associate value with an account? Don't use metrics that benefit scammers. If you weren't going to give them the loan without the account, then don't give them the loan with the account.

---

Well, it is. Though you're right about the reputation part (virtue > value), I believe there has been a case of a trusted user exit-scamming via loan defaulting in the past.

Just follow the principle of risk aversion. Determine if it's enough of a risk to send BTC for the stated return, while considering factors like time (if btc price is relevant) and reputation. It won't be precise but one should always be smart when it comes to money.

Here's the first reply. The problem with announcing "my account got hacked and someone scammed!" is that there's no way to verify it. It's inadmissible as a plea for innocence. Everyone can use that excuse, just like everyone can use the "my family member went on my account" excuse. Allowing that to pass creates the most abusable precedent ever.

I haven't taken a look at your posts but even if you have incredible post quality, it doesn't matter. Joining signature campaigns just "for the money" isn't something that I believe a BCT member should do. Just like how I frown heavily upon bounty hunters and all those garbage members buying/seeking out merit just so they can join a bounty.

You should find a different source of income to repay the debt.

Negative trust should have no impact on the quality of discussion. Additionally I see no problem trading with the use of escrow, and having you send first. If you're scammed, you can create a report as there shouldn't be prejudice towards negged users in that regard.

So, you're asking for equivalence here.

No comment.

This is a not as bad as argument and will have no impact on your rating.

In a general sense, negs should follow about the same degree of impact (i.e. scamming as opposed to wrong opinions). But, that's in general. Making a case between two different people will not change much unless it's something notable enough to set a precedent.

The aTriz case is a garbled mess and doesn't really relate to many other individuals, and certainly not you. A similar case can be said about Quickseller.

Stop trying to leverage this incident towards your own issue. I see that you're bumping old threads and making a ruckus. Stop.

You do not deserve a second chance. You flat-out stole money. You are untrustworthy, full stop.

You cannot should not send out -ve feedback without sufficient reason and foresight.

Neither the thread-starter nor the merit sender should receive negative feedback (unless this is not an isolated case). We, as humans, are subjective by nature and some individuals may choose to send 50 merit on occasion to certain topics. This is not necessarily untrustworthy since we have no clear abuse between the two users.

In the case where it is not an isolated instance then we can start to formulate a conjecture. Back-and-forth merit transactions will usually dictate shady behavior.