currently DT1 members are doing whatever they want and their actions are left unpunished.
Have you PMed the DT1 members yet? E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread. But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list. OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them. I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works. Let me try and simplify. If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that. If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating. If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that. *Here's where it gets tricky. If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network. If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network. What you shouldn't do is... Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings. Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating. There are of course extenuating circumstances for every action and that is where the importance of judgement and decentralization comes into play. The goal here should be to create a network of trust that accurately reflects an individual's trustworthiness.*Do not confuse excluding someone from your trust network with leaving negative trust ratings.Theymos has said in the past it is okay to counter a ln unjust negative with a positive as only a small number of people can get someone removed from DT and excluding someone yourself won’t solve the underlying problem. A positive that counters a negative should probably also include an exclusion of the person who gave the unjust negative. A negative to counter a positive is ridiculous as is a negative for “not trusting” someone, barring extreme circumstances. |
|
|
|
Although I don't know achow101 on a personal level, I am fairly confident he is is a nazi.
Freudian typo there, QS? I suppose that should have been "is not" or "isn't". Oops, lol. Fixed. He is very far from a nazi AFIK. Sorry achow101 |
|
|
|
|
Although I don't know achow101 on a personal level, I am fairly confident he is is not a nazi.
From a technical standpoint, he very much knows what he is talking about.
|
|
|
|
Anyhow, Vod what do you have to say on this: Anduck lies. :/
Read the PMs again. Notice where I type "ah, until this point'? That is when I lost trust for him. Around a week later, with no further communication from him, I changed my rating. If you choose a scammer's interpretation of those words over mine, then you will believe him over me.
I did read the PMs. But what I noticed was that you asked him to change his ratings first, otherwise you'd change it, and then only after Anduck said that it would be better if both of you remove the ratings, and only then did you found the rating to be retaliatory. I am not saying anduck is a scammer but nor am I saying what he did is ethical. The rating was good on its own, the issue here is when you changed it, and it does honestly look like retaliation after reading those conversations. From the looks of things, vod would rather respond to the trolls in an attempt to derail this thread, likely to avoid others seeing the underlying facts. |
|
|
|
|
OgNasty is not a scammer. It seems that you were sending what is a fake OgNasty quote to one of your trading partners.
|
|
|
|
Comments like this are why nobody takes your opinion seriously and why I immediately added you to my exclusion list a long time ago. suchmoon is a bottom feeder. She will only side with those who she perceives to be more powerful in a dispute as a way for her to gain additional power. She will troll those who she perceives to be less powerful by twisting irrelevant facts/portions of a dispute, and will create a tangent regarding said irrelevant facts, derailing threads. Also similar to Lauda, suchmoon will troll those who she perceives to be weak. |
|
|
|
|
It is pointless to attempt to have a discussion with vod especially about this. Contact those who put vod on their trust list.
I would not even take what he says seriously.
|
|
|
|
It is important to note that this date was chosen by the law firm and tether did not know the date the bank balance was confirmed until after the fact. This means tether/Bitfinex cannot have sold bitcoin in order to raise sufficient USD to prepare to have their balance match on that date. |
|
|
|
The CEO will be keeping an eye on how the employees use the account though.
The owner of primedice afaik is stunna, I'm not sure whether primedice is an incorporated entity and by business, I meant Incorporated entity. If you could find the documents to state this?
And I think I am pricing them a bit low but that makes the loan more secure. I also base my predicted amount on how much I know a user, for example, I increased my limit for a member of this forum a while back and he repayed me back - with a bit of a delay though but I still got everything back.
I am fairly certain that primedice is incorporated somewhere, I want to say Costa Rica, but I am not 100% sure. I do know that stunna is one of the owners but is not the only owner, and am fairly certain he is not even a majority owner. PD recently got a new CEO. Bitstamp is an incorporated entity, specifically the name of the entity is "Bitstamp LTD" but I can assure you there is not public information about who its shareholders are, who ultimately make high level decisions regarding the business. I have no idea if it you are appropriately pricing your loans, however as I previously said, if you are offering too small of loans, then you are missing out on interest income. I would find it hard to believe that, as a lender, you would not want to know what accounts are selling for so you can have more information about how much to lend to a particular user, and so a user who cannot repay what he is borrowing knows he has an alternative to taking out a loan from you. |
|
|
|
|
My prediction is that the merit system will not last long enough for this to be a major issue.
However if you have a long history of contributing, but don't have sufficient merit to rank up, someone may decide to give you sufficient merit to rank up.
|
|
|
|
So they told you to wait until Monday and you decided to make a bunch of noice in here before then? That makes no sense either and I'm going to have to question your motives.
It's not a bad idea to warn people that a casino is (likely needlessly) holding $100k+ worth of coins from being withdrawn. If someone has $100k+ stuck, I'd expect FortuneJack to give him/her some priority, given the amount. The fact that they kept decreasing withdraws puts their LTC solvency into question. If they've previously struggled with large withdraws during the weekend (but never actually failed to pay anyone) it doesn't matter as they can't give it any priority. Perhaps they should consider learning from this to create a better customer experience; IIRC no other large dice sites do this. If they've had an issue catering to whales, they should consider hiring another individual to work on processing withdraws (why are they delayed anyway?) over the weekends. I think it's very reasonable to expect a casino to pay out over the weekend in the Bitcoin gambling space. I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. This person has 100,000 USD+ that he cannot access for whatever reason, and FortuneJack is not providing an explanation and instead just telling him to wait. It has happened in the past multiple times, and will almost certainly happen again in the future. It is not especially unusual to have limited amounts of crypto in your hot wallet and it is not outside of what is reasonable to only have access to a cold wallet at certain times (for example if they are held in safe deposit boxes in a bank). Even if the hot wallet has sufficient funds to cover the OP's withdrawal, it might not have enough to cover the OP's withdrawal and the expected withdrawals of other players. I think it would have been better if they held the entire withdrawal until the cold wallet can be accessed, rather than allow the OP to withdraw declining amounts every day. And of course to let him know when to expect the withdrawal to be processed by. |
|
|
|
I believe Vod's claim that you are lying stems from what was likely you misspeaking a single time
What misspeaking? After rereading your previous thread, I will retract that statement. My statement stems from an issue that you cleared up here. |
|
|
|
but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan. You should already be able to predict the value for youself and set limits on what you'd lend to specific lenders based on their reputation(I have mine). You may or may not be correct in the limits you set. Your limits may be too high, and you have simply been lucky in terms of your loan losses, or they may be too low, and you are missing out on potential interest income. Other lenders may not come to the same conclusions as you have, and may not have sufficient information to be comfortable lending any amount without collateral. I am fairly confident that accounts are still being traded, it is only that they are being done in a blackmarket type setting and prices are not public. Making this information public would give lenders additional data points when deciding to make a loan. What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
If I make an account and make a PLC, LLC or LTD company, I have to list myself as the owner of the company. My account can then be traced back to that company and therefore someone can find all the shareholders/owners/directors of that company. That information is already public knowledge so you may as well link it to the account. Why don't you tell me where I can find the names of the shareholders and directors of PrimeDice and Bitstamp LTD? Before you spend too much time looking, I will start by telling you this information is not public, although some companies may choose to make some of it public. And NO, if the primary account holder (the CEO) changes, then it should be stated publicly somewhere - even if just a way to advertise the company as there's another thread with your company's name on it.
Much of the time, the company account will not be used by the CEO. If you look at NitrogenSports's account, you will see it is clearly run by a team of customer service reps. Often times, business accounts are run by fairly low level employees, and their employment status is similarly often not public information.
Gleb clearly doesn't care about his accounts that much because he has a history of taking loans out on them and also not paying them back. The fact that he would try sell or borrow based on them and for so little says a lot about him to be honest and that's behaviour that I can't trust.
I can't speak to Bruno's situation specifically, as I do not know the underlying facts that caused him to sell his account. However, hypothetically speaking, if someone lost their job and is in need of money to pay rent, and to buy food, what would you suggest they do? Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a job, and government welfare programs will generally not cover the bills of someone who is unemployed, and especially will not do so indefinitely. |
|
|
|
After reading the entire PM conversation, I would agree that Vod was abusing his position on DT in order to entice you to remove the rating that you had at the time against him. The question of if this rises to extortion or not, I am not sure, however unfortunately when you are in power around here, not very much will happen to you after you extort someone. I can't support the activity that was the root cause of this dispute, and others in the past have received multiple negative ratings for similar activity. On the other hand, I don't support the public lynching of members after making a single mistake, especially after they have made the relevant parties whole (it is my understanding this has not happened in your case). I believe Vod's claim that you are lying stems from what was likely you misspeaking a single time, and probably does not fall into the category of being dishonest. Based upon the fact that Vod was previously asking for you to remove your negative with the threat of leaving a negative rating himself, I would question the legitimacy of the claim that Vod "distrusts" you, although I disagree with this standard to leave a negative rating. I would suggest you contact dooglus, Cryus and HostFat about your concerns, and ideally they will remove Vod from their trust lists. |
|
|
|
Vod blackmailed me and lies in his ratings How did Vod blackmail you? What did he ask for? What is he lying about? |
|
|
|
He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it, I think it is pretty clear Bruno is not interested in repaying the $600 he was trying to get for his account, hence he listed it for sale. The notion that someone should take out a loan they have no interest in repaying should be condemned. The same is true for those who lack the ability to repay a loan. but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan. |
|
|
|
This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.
The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's. In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception. I'm not entirely sure about the business thing. If some of the staff/people with acces to it, remains the same then I don't think anything has changed too much. If the company get sold outright and the entire staff is changed then the account and business arguably should have their trust and history removed. Otherwise it looks a lot like it's one rule for one and one rule for another... Although, the same legal entity do technically own the account - a link to their business probile showing the change of the shareholders would be helpful in fully clarifying all of the information about the account. What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling? The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public? |
|
|
|
PS: Will somebody fuckin call me at 702-981-5600 to confirm I am who I say I am.
I spoke to Bruno and confirmed he in fact *not* sell his account. I confirmed the telephone number here, and he posted a picture while he was speaking with me. I think this thread can be closed. |
|
|
|
PS: Will somebody fuckin call me at 702-981-5600 to confirm I am who I say I am.
I spoke to Bruno and confirmed he in fact *not* sell his account. I confirmed the telephone number here, and he posted a picture while he was speaking with me. I can GPG sign something if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
