I think you can clarify a bit better which flags can be used and when. For instance that certain flags can only be used for contract violations and that incorrect use of flags is considered abuse. Even accidental misuse or support of inaccurate flags can result in consequences. Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:
Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
Also, a few miscellaneous changes:
- All of the sections on users' trust pages are now paginated, so the page doesn't expand to massive size anymore.
- The ordering of sent feedback is now consistent with the other sections.
- "Risked BTC" is removed.
PM me if you find bugs.
|
|
|
|
I was away for a while in BCT and when I just opened the forum TalkStar's pm greeted me that I have a flag coming from the two accounts of Hatch Support (the other being Hatch Exchange) but after visiting my trust page that's when I realized I have nothing to worry about because I really got surprised that other members have opposed the two flags given to me even without me posting the links here. I just want to say thank you that you have agreed on my findings on the case that started this flag spree of Hatch Support and for having my back.
Theymos made it quite clear that misuse of flags is serious abuse. I've tagged them accordingly. Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2477143https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2689172 |
|
|
|
Any progress with this ? Did they just disappear off the face of the earth ?  Their bitcointalk account still logged on after they disappeared. |
|
|
|
Everything seems to have gone silent on this one. Bizarrely their bitcointalk account still logged on after the exchange disappeared. |
|
|
|
I expect a number of smaller crypto exchanges to close. The crypto winter makes them unprofitable and the issues with 51% attacks makes them vulnerable to exploits. Massively high number of confirmations makes them unattractive to crypto speculators that do arbitrage. NEVER use an exchange to store your coins. Coinexchange.io is also closing down. https://www.coinexchange.io/news/post/85/ |
|
|
|
|
I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.
Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.
He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.
But I think his opinions are genuinely held.
I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.
It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".
I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.
So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).
DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.
|
|
|
|
That situation looks like negative feedback for the attempted scam, and a newbie warning flag for yhe same reason.
The losses based on the business opportunity don't actually exist because it's a scam attempt, meaning there never was the potential to earn the fee.
That is flawed logic. If someone makes an agreement and the other party is going to gain from that agreement and then breaks that agreement (without a valid legal reason) and does not compensate for the loss of profit - then there is a loss. It is irrelevant that the person who made the agreement had no intention of completing it. It is reasonable to assume that the customer will proceed with the contractual terms when a contract is made. The seller had no control over the customers decision to scam. As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.
For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.
I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)
For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. and I only want actual agreements considered here. and The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement.I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified. |
|
|
|
Let me preface this by that I have a lot of Turkish friends and customers. My dislike and distrust of Timelord2067 is also reasonably well known. But I have to disagree with reason given for the flag. I think there is a mis-understanding over the purpose of the flags. Theymos was quite clear that flags should relate to trade related issues only. It's the end of Trust Tags Relate to Opinion ConflictsYou should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Abuse on Flags should be avoidedCreating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
The point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar.As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.
For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.
I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)
FlagsHowever repugnant you find someones opinion - flags should not be used for non trading issues. Trust ratingsTrust ratings (also referred to as tags) - positive, neutral and negative trust is more flexible as to what it covers. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851Trust listLikewise your trust list can be used to indicate which people you distrust by adding a ~ before their names. You can find your trust list here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust |
|
|
|
If you look at the graph at the bottom it shows volume. There was no volume traded before August 1 so it is likely that the value was based on the issue price based on ETH from the ICO (and fluctuating based on ETH price) - not trading price.
You could be right, but looking at ethplorer there was definitely some volume activity prior to August 1st. (i tend to not trust any website on their volume stat accuracy for that matter). https://ethplorer.io/address/0x9d8be94d0612170ce533ac4d7b43cc3cd91e5a1aSince you are in contact with BQT, would it possible for them to provide btc/eth addys for their sold tokens? According to ICOBench they have sold tokens worth of ~$37,000,000 (BQTX=1.0800 USD). Hopefully, it's not 98% sold for fiat in private sales? haha I'm asking because in last years bear market most projects had trouble raising any kind of money. That $37mil somehow stands out...is it not? Also coinall was trading as low as 0.04c already on 15/7/19 according to their statistics.(I think that was the first day listed) https://www.coinall.com/market?product=bqtx_usdt |
|
|
|
So you think Talkstar is open this thread with no real grounds, and that he is "unfairly targeting" BQT&IOU for not paying bounty participants x or xx months after the promised deadline? I think it's wrong to set things up in a way "They all do same things", so why BQT should be different.
I agree with Talkstar opening a thread. It brought it to their attention. I disagree that it is a scam by BQT or IOU. There are other projects that were affected by the same bounty manager that are far longer overdue but nobody is accusing them of scamming. Definition of a scam is a dishonest scheme or fraud. There is no proof that there was any intent of dishonesty or fraud by BQT. If I accused all my customers that were late paying my invoices of being scammers it is likely that I wouldn't be in business for long. While I believe it is up to BQT to sort out - which they are doing. I am sympathetic towards the reason for the delay - which I believe is not their fault. Price of both token is go down, and BQT is from ATH $1.74 (May 20, 2019) now at only $0.08. So by "forgeting" to pay participants in time, they will maybe give them tokens that are much less valuable.
Not correct. Look closely at the graph. There was no trading volume prior to August 1 on that graph. From $1.26 on 29th July to $0.09 (as of today).   If you look at the graph at the bottom it shows volume. There was no volume traded before August 1 so it is likely that the value was based on the issue price based on ETH from the ICO (and fluctuating based on ETH price) or on very low volume - not real trading price. |
|
|
|
Patience is really the key for the participants when it comes to delayed payments but we are talking about almost a year of promise that a payment will happen "soon" and I don't think it's good enough to see that after 11 months of waiting you will only receive an update that they are "working on it" without really going into detail whatsoever. I'll give a thumbs up that aTriz have updated the current situation but if that "soon" didn't happen at all then it is really all for nothing.
That is not true about BQT. Bounty payment was due 40 days after the ICO finished according to the bounty. This was a promise made by Zapo but left for others to sort out. ICO finished earlier this year. Atriz /Zapo is no longer involved in the current process. Someone else has already been tasked with completing the audit which hadn't been done but is part of a bounty managers task. Other projects have voiced the difficulties of such task when it is not completed by the bounty manager. I think this project is unfairly targeted for a payment that is overdue at the most for 3 or so months while other projects in the same situation but overdue for more than a year have not been complained about in the same way. Such inconsistencies tend to happen regularly. I think people tend to get overzealous in calling others "scammers". Especially if they do not have active representation on bitcointalk. I believe that Theymos has a symilar opinion when he said: Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139179.msg50888622#msg50888622Both myself and Talkstar have been in contact with BQT. With a previous allegation against them they provided all the information and did exactly what they said they would - leaving the previous allegation without foundation. They ran a successful ICO raising millions. Spent millions on building their project and paid their signature campaign participants. I see no reason why they would "scam" their bounty participants for a few dollars worth of tokens which they set aside for the bounty at the start of the project. |
|
|
|
What did they make the basis of the case that he actually owned bitcoins at that point? Just his word?
So basically all he's done is claim he has x amount and provided the public address of such which anyone could do, but no actual proof of him ever actually owning or having access to them and them being in a trust is the excuse as to why he can't? Is there a list of addresses he's publicly claimed to have owned?
It is quite simple: The court is interested in is the bitcoins he claims to own and the bitcoins they can prove he owns. There are already other official records and court records where he claims to own specific bitcoins. That will determine the size of the award and penalties if the case is proven. Any bitcoins that he owns that he doesn't declare can be forfeited by future court action. |
|
|
|
So based on your statement BQT/IOU is positive with bounty stake, falt goes to bounty manager who is acting like irresponsible manager lately. And obviously I trust you personally and your judgment as well.
I've had extensive conversations with the BTQ team. Their focus is on resolving the issue rather than finger pointing and laying blame. Personally I like that approach - as it is focused on what everyone ultimately wants (getting paid) rather than on something that has already happened. They have been updating me regularly - which parts of which I post on here. However, I have talked with aTriz and I don't think he have contact with team lately. ?
I have seen screenshots of the recent conversation with atriz. Since spreadsheet is open for everyone team could distribute themselves or they might hire someone (even you) to distribute bounty stake. So let's wait and see what response come out from manager ?
They have someone that was tasked with the bounty audit and I have seen the spreadsheet. I have offered to post communication on their behalf on this thread (I'm waiting for their official response to post on here). |
|
|
|
They both reacted just because this thread is open, otherwise no one would ever get 1 cent from this bounty.
I brought it to their attention when I saw this thread so - yes - the thread has been a positive influence in getting some action. I'm unsure what was done about it prior to this but there certainly has been action on it since. BQT have been quite forthcoming with information to me so I am confident that it will soon be resolved. None of the BQT team that I spoke to is familiar with bitcointalk so they left that task to a professional bounty manager that had been recommended to them. From reading the Gunbot thread it appears the Gunbot bounty was payable in May 2018 ? which was run by atriz and is only just getting sorted now.(September 2018) It appears their issues were very similar. . |
|
|
|
aTriz replied today to me, but I don't think he is serious about that matter.
-snip-
I don't think this is appropriate answers and I am not feeling happy with that answer.
Inappropriate answer or not, aTriz job is done and it is up to the BQT and IOU team to do theirs. tvplus006, who is a participant in that bounty, also agrees. [....] The manager does not distribute the token. The manager did his job - counted the tables. This should be done by the project team.
It appears other atriz / zapo bounties are late paying out too. EDIT: atriz / zapo has since contacted BQT and is trying to help them sort out the bounty audit. It appears he has lost access to some of his accounts related to the bounty. I've been communicating with Edward who is the BQT CEO and who is working hard with a BQT team member tasked with resolving the issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
