How would you enforce any such standard? 51% attack the DefaultTrust network maybe.  Actually, in its current state, you need far less power to usurp the system as long as you stay under theymos's radar.
Probably in the form of exclusions etc. against opinion-based feedback. Like I said: you shouldn't be forced to always justify non-exclusions with the common excuse, "ah, but they've provided more to the forum in these feedbacks" - most of the time, that's merely a fallacious deflection, isn't it? That's why I talked about redundant negatives. Shouldn't be a strong point of argumentation that appears every time we have this type of discussion. |
|
|
|
You don't agree with the feedback, yet you support his inclusion into DT thereby supporting his feedback... This is something that should be discussed, though. The true threshold of unwarranted ratings that will make people start to question inclusions. How many "bad ratings" should a single person get away with? What standards should the ratings uphold? Would be good to apply this to everyone in DefaultTrust, active or prospective, and see which members have a high percentage of false positives toward supposed scammers (or rather, false negatives). In reality, we should always redundantly tag accounts rather than relying on single points of failure. We should always move towards decentralization as opposed to against. |
|
|
|
great idea? lets do it? we can create usd , eur gbp and even china currency each of 1 billion will be enough i think  everybody will use our stable currency becouse we will give a lot away for free !! so who is in the team lets make money ? Even after reading the thread, can't tell. Poe's Law is strong, isn't it?
Of course, the thing is, if other members were allowed to create many, many threads before being banned... what would happen if someone wanted to actually maliciously spam and troll the forum boards? Give this a thought. |
|
|
|
OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated? One-sided threads are not something that would be good for evaluating truth, especially when it comes to supporting a flag which brands a user's account. Threads also create a more streamlined setup than a singular post: authoring a new topic can allow for much better organization of the events as you can always add relevant details to the initial post as necessary. It allows for replies to the flag content itself rather than possibly being confined to a separate thread (where the flag details may be off-topic) |
|
|
|
|
Damn, you too? I was scammed by theymos last week on Telegram too but he deleted the messages so I have no proof of this but I'll still make a reply sorry.
|
|
|
|
I would say it wouldn’t be unreasonable if someone who has a sales thread uses their alt account to ask a frequently asked question so long as the question is answered quickly so not to result in two bumps that seriously affect where the thread is located. Seems redundant given those specifications, doesn't it? I can't think of a reason to create two or more posts with an alt conversation - in what situation does one post or do a series of edits not suffice?
Maybe some argument based on privacy and the ability to respond to a separate cryptographic identity - which is probably what the smarter alt-ring bumpers would also use as an excuse. I'm sure that people who have been doing account farming for a long time have figured out the optimal way to connect their accounts' replies together to reduce the amount of overall work while being just constructive enough to work under the forum rules. Realistically, unless you reveal yourself to the forum and link multiple cryptographic identities together, no one will know about your alt accounts. Ban evasion is not difficult and neither is account farming. It's probably the road to a comfortable lifestyle for many people who live in low CoL areas. |
|
|
|
I don’t think forum rules around multiposting applies to someone posting from two accounts IIRC there have been cases in the past of this happening - in particular, relating to bumps if memory serves. In general, I don't think it's necessary to have a conversation with yourself. Any depth that you want to encompass in your post should simply be confined to a single account or better yet a single post - additional dialogue can be edited to the user's posts so I don't see how it can be constructive. |
|
|
|
I don't believe in counter-positive feedbacks, but I know other DT members don't feel the same way. Maybe one of them might take pity on your case and counter Vod's negative. Good luck in any case. As far as I'm concerned, both positives and negatives have waned in their effect: if someone trading with me is unwilling to actually go into the details of the trust ratings (incl. negatives) then that's not the kind of person that I would probably like to transact with. Where's the due diligence in "don't trust, verify" when it comes to the trust system? After all, for example, only 8 of my positive feedback ratings (unique users) pertain to actual trades. People who merely look at the numbers on your profile are most likely the same people that mainly look at the titles when they are constructing their reply to threads.
I would have used counters in the past but nowadays they are simply pointless. |
|
|
|
At this point their posting can be considered as trolling. It’s constant, bumping old threads, shit posting, off topic.
I don’t see why mods don’t nuke them. It's actually very, very difficult to get banned on this forum unless you are doing some insane spam or trolling. The only reliable method is to copy-paste something. Did you know that many of the users that have hundreds of posts deleted for spam are still running around as if nothing happened? Just keep reporting if there are rules being broken. It'll be a measure of the moderator patience vs. shill patience: which do you think will run out first? |
|
|
|
Anyone that eddie13 is accusing directly - names, c'mon This is merely intellectual, not accusational.. Whatever. If you want to get a "win" based on the semantic intent, then go for it. I just figure that it would be nice to have some names of the people you claim are hypocrites. Let's not go for low-hanging one-ups, okay? |
|
|
|
|
That first thread should just be trashed, full stop.
Copy-pasting three sentences and then linking the image and source is not something that I would call "substance".
Older news is more difficult to add relevance: press threads should ideally have some nuance in their OP with a foundation of discussion rather than an affront to your ability to use a search engine.
In my eyes, a month seems like the maximum: that's my guideline for (most) necrobumps on the forum, so if we simply take it up one layer and apply it to thread creation as a follow-up to the external discussion, it seems about right.
|
|
|
|
What alt accounts should not do is make posts in the same thread, giving the impression that there's a genuine conversation happening--that borders on spam, if you ask me, and I've caught people doing that in the past. And frankly, as long as the person with multiple accounts is making reasonably good posts across the board, who cares? Given that the forum treats alternate accounts as the same cryptographic identity and that the forum rules are applied to mentioned identities (e.g. bans, consecutive posts), I see no reason why talking to yourself (between two accounts) would not constitute as spam. Rather than write a single post that is edited with the content or rather than replying to other users, the individual is effectively inflating their posts and creating meaningless replies. Of course, once you start getting into multi-user discussions, it's a more complicated issue: do we have 51% discussion attacks where the alts control the conversation, yet are not considered spammers or rule-breakers because there is enough of an external flow of replies? What's the threshold here? |
|
|
|
What FOMA did was wrong, but it was wrong because it involved deception. He did not steal from anyone, including CM, or otherwise hurt anyone. FOMA did provide benefits to the forum for being around by making many insightful posts -- I don't know if having him around was a net benefit, but I do think that is something open for discussion. CM on the other hand, helps criminals who have stolen money make it difficult for authorities to detect that this money is stolen -- in other words CM helps thiefs get away with stealing. As mentioned before I believe having CM around is a net benefit, but it is hypocritical to have zero tolerance for deception, and then turn around and be willing to look the other way when the company you are receiving payment from is profiting from illegal activity that harms people. Like I said previously, people who want to defend the CM service alongside the community backlash against FOMA can probably make some argument based on the difference of granularity - probably something to do with the significance of their impact on the system/platform. Truthfully, it seems like too much offal shit to untangle - wrapped up in a package that even a haggis unlikely to check. Anyone that eddie13 is accusing directly - names, c'mon - should probably have more reasons than the same old fiat/btc argument because those are (more or less) mutually exclusive choices. I have no desire to spin a sheet of rhetoric with that defense. |
|
|
|
Can you just do the same highlighting process for the original reference? This post: If you meet a stranger on the street and he asks you for 100$ and tells you he will give you 200$ back tomorrow, will you blindly give him the 100$ ? It's the same thing here, and just because it's a crypto-thing doesn't mean you have to give your money away without doing a few basic verifications.
If you send out money to some unknown place on the internet and get ripped off, that's on you. Not the trust system.
Some projects were looking very much legit and could easily mislead even some educated crypto investors. Fo example monetha. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1978067.0 - Thread is closed to avoid uncomfortable questions. Lithuanian scam organized by a stripper Justas Pikelis who was posing as a crypto ertenpenior but later was exposed by forum members. That guy was a night bar stripper. He and his partners found a former paypal executive manager Eric Duprat via linkedin and offered him to participate in a new crypto project. At that time Duprat was unemployed and struggling financially. So he said yes. After he appeared in the team in 2017 during ICO boom that project received 38 million dollars in the first opening day of ICO. Tokens were sold for 0.4 USD but after the listing the price decreased only and now the price is $0.02079 and 24h volume is $900. And a few basic verifications like you said did not help at all. There was no white paper and nothing was delivered at the end of the project. (Just some shitty app made by a student for $500) It was all Eric Duprat who had no idea what was going on and who was just posing as a team member. He received his $1.5 million and was very happy. Was that a giveaway to some unknown place on the internet as another of our colleagues mentioned. I do not think so. Some scams are well organized and even a veteran forum member can fall for it. Read about BTC gold that I mentioned above. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2253633.0
Should clear things up |
|
|
|
Liberals tend to be willing to bend their principals when it comes to them earning money.
Take Disney for example. What definition of "liberal" is this? I would probably say that most companies, once they reach a certain size, concentrate more on the bottom line than any idealized values. The whole goal is to unify labor/skills to earn capital after all.
FWIW the topic can be argued either way. Just depends on the constructs you're willing to erect. Where does it end? Promotion or denunciation of objects, individuals, groups, services, platforms, systems, outer structures, ideas, ideologies, realities; find your place on the scale and where you're willing to argue. Go ahead. |
|
|
|
Interesting construction of the link above. You seem like a very experienced SMF user. Not really. The most likely way to reach the page is to hit "Next" on the paginated untrusted feedback section and then check the URL or hit "Previous" at the bottom of the second page.
I'd like a better reference and justification for the tag, though. A red tag from Vod isn’t the end of the world like it used to be.. And that’s about all I’m willing to say about that anymore.. People still act as if DefaultTrust feedback has not been diluted multiple magnitudes from its original standard back when the list was manually-chosen by theymos. |
|
|
|
If I was running a campaign I would call it cheating as it makes me pay more for less and it amuses me greatly to see some seemingly rational and respected users going out of their way to downplay this. Smokescreens should be kept up to prevent the alt cabal from being discovered by the community. Rather than facilitate a secret organization denying all wrongdoing, the community puts up a front with nonsensical conspiratorial users to create an association of unreliability toward criticism. Diluting the subsequent efforts of users that truly uncover the system of corruption, the criminal organization develops a reputation of upstanding trustworthiness purely through the sentiment of the advertisers and other forum members. Success for the ChipMixer Cult, and down with the forum. Conspiracies are so banal because you cake them in un-falsifiability.Now what does this have to do with egregious criminals laundering money? Obviously, if you wear a signature you support the practices of the company you are advertising. |
|
|
|
Hm. Context matters here, though. I would argue that the intent of the rule is to prevent one-sided discussion. Locking a thread after one exchange is definitely something that falls under that category: I'm not sure what the translated content says but there should always be open discourse in a flag thread to prevent abuse from any party. |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, that is a type 1 flag. I believe I explained to you that the type 2 and 3 flags apply to the situation of having been harmed.
For example, the type 3 flag reads as follows: "X violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. X did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around MONTH YYYY. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."
If you read the flag Ratimov posted, it's just a typical "high-risk" type 1 flag. Something that's a little more significant than a negative rating.
|
|
|
|
What users should to do with users that violated that rules (if the is are rules)? Report to moderator? Report to Reputation board? Something other? I don't know what you're talking about so publicizing it would be a good start. Write a thread directed at theymos. It's effectively a semi-centralized of the original DefaultTrust - he blacklists some users but doesn't pick and choose directly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
