Well i am have proof that lauda tried to buy accounts, including attempting to buy up 10 at a time on at least one occasion. It would probably be a safe assumption that he also sold accounts.

If you think that guy is me, then you are wrong. You have to admit he is funny.

I would suggest you look at nullis who is fraudulently misrepresenting himself being new here and likely faking trades.

I believe it is most likely a troll account created to show how obvious the nullis or whatever his name is, account is a sock puppet of someone who is not new here.

If you get in contact the ThePharmacist, the information will be conveyed to lauda, automatically

No. Being new here, I want to make it very clear that I am new here. I also want to point out that I checked the archives and have confirmed that minifrij likes to blindly back lauda even when lauda is very clearly in the wrong.

Please don't post anything to indicate what I said is not true. I wouldn't want you to refute anything negative I say about you..

Being new here, and after reading through the archives of the forum I cannot find any evidence this is true, and a review of the tor logs, which I am an avid user of, it appears you are a dishonest person, so I am not inclined to believe you without specific citations.

Being new here, I would like to know why you are always very blindly backing lauda and his questionable decisions, including when he lies and extorts people out of their hard earned money. As an avid tor user, I am an expert in staying anon, and love advertising so.

LOL. Since you very clearly intentionally are trying to create the false impression that you are new here, it is beyond even any unreasonable doubts that you are new here

I don't see any evidence of this being the result of community feedback, nor do I see any evidence of any public discussion about this person's ratings.

I think an optimum solution for social security would be to first significantly raise the retirement age to be more in line with morality rates, and advancements in medicine that allow people to live and work longer. Social security should also be transformed into a 401k type system in which workers (and employers) contribute a mandatory percentage of their earnings into an investment account in which they can invest in a broad range of investments, including both an immediate and deferred annuity sold by private companies. A small amount of what gets deposited into this accounts can be taken and given to the very poor, so most people get 99% of what they put in, and the very poor get much more than 100% of what they put in.



The above is not the best system or the most in line with my personal beliefs, however it does give citizens personal responsibility to invest their retirement savings as they deem best, takes away significant amounts of government control over retirement accounts, while having certain features that makes it unlikely that the program would be entirely undone the next time progressives have supermajorities in congress along with the white house, which will eventually happen.

My concern about giving away government owned land is that a lot of the land is only valuable in very large potions, so a $33k parcel would often have little effective value, and also the value of many parcels would likely change by a lot when certain groups of parcels get developed, while others do not.

Another concern about outright dismantling the social security system is that the next time progressives have super majorities, they can just create a new social security-like system, potentially one that gives government even more control, and creates an even bigger welfare state.

Banks rely so heavily on US government debt being repaid on a timely basis that almost all of them would likely fail if the US government were to default on their debt obligations. This would also result in the FDIC failing, which would mean that account holders would only receive a small percentage of their deposits.

I don't think banks are all that bad though. For deposit holders, they keep money safe from theft, and pay a small amount of interest. Deposit accounts are not very profitable for banks, carry a lot of risk of losses, so they probably would not offer deposit accounts if they are unable to lend some of their deposits out. If everyone had to keep all their money in physical dollars in their house (or other property), there would probably be a lot more violent crimes, including robberies because it would be known that everyone has large amounts of cash in their homes. The deposit services that banks offer also make traveling less risky because without deposit services you would need to carry sufficient cash to cover all expenses of your trip when traveling and getting robbed on the highway would leave your stranded.

Banks lending out money is not all that bad either. Banks have relied upon the assumption that depositors as a whole will not withdraw large amounts of their deposits (which has held true) to lend out a portion of their deposits, which makes offering deposit accounts profitable. Banks lending money for things like houses and cars also allow people to pay for things over a time that is closer to the time they will use said items verses up front. I believe that forcing people to pay for everything up front, or renting property would likely eventually result in entities very closely resembling a government owning nearly all of property who rents out property to citizens, effectively exerting control over citizens that rivals places like North Korea.   

I do have evidence for what is being said in that thread. It is just not being publicly published. That thread has exposed another example of the dishonesty of lauda though.

I can lend you up to 20 ETH with 125% BTC as collateral for up to 30 days at 1% interest. I can keep this offer open through the end of the weekend (expires Feb 18 at 2359 GMT).

Let me know. Thanks.

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?


If you are someone who supports the ability to dispute trust received, I would suggest you review this quote from Lauda.

I would also ask a similar question that I asked salty, do you have any examples of Lauda engaging in a serious public discussion about his sent ratings? I know that I do not have any such examples. I do have a lot of examples in which lauda has responded to disputes about his ratings with cat memes. I also have 9 examples of Lauda leaving negative trust, in which his comment indicates it was for being critical of him after only reviewing the past month of his sent ratings.

lol.

This is disappointing to say the least.

Has lauda asked you to add him to your trust list?


It is not possible to exclude only certain types of ratings when calculating a trust score. Further, lauda is involved with many shady dealings, such as attempting to extort someone, screwing up an escrow deal and forcing the people he was supposed to be protecting to cover the losses, clearly being dishonest about if he is denying a pill addiction, very clearly lying about past account buying activity, among many others.

I also reviewed Lauda's sent trust over the past month, and identified ratings against 9 members in which the comment on the rating indicates that it was given because they publicly criticized. This makes it clear to anyone who is scammed by lauda, including anyone who doesn't fully agree with the outcome of a trade that they cannot voice their criticisms. It also makes it clear to anyone that disagrees with any of lauda's ratings that they should not speak publicly about this, removing any serious pressure for lauda to respond to any threads about his ratings with anything other than cat memes. These ratings are below:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1091017
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=703078
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=150593
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355462
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1115662
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=843166
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1316028
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1717650
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1250969


Have you seen any examples of Lauda changing his behavior in reaction to feedback from the community? I have no examples of this, nor do I have examples of Lauda removing a single rating in response to community feedback.

I am curious to know if you have any examples of Lauda engaging in serious public discussion about any of his ratings, ever. I cannot think of any such examples.

As OgNasty pointed out, Lauda doesn't seem to be stopping a lot of scams. He does leave a lot of feedback, although a lot of it is for very questionable reasons. As pointed out previously, lauda refuses to even discuss any of his ratings, and by your own admission (and as per a statement from theymos), many of lauda's ratings are not appropriate.

The rate at which lauda leaves negative ratings is much higher than (exponentially) what the entire Default Trust network has done in the past. How do you account for this? Were scams so prevalent previously that people were getting scammed left and right? Have scams gone down so much that virtually no one gets scammed anymore? Have we had a massive influx of people (this is likely somewhat true, however not sufficiently true to account for the higher volume of negative ratings)? I think the reason is most likely to be that many people are receiving negative ratings that should not be.


I would suggest that you review this quote of Lauda before making that statement. Lauda made it very clear that he has no interest in even reviewing his sent ratings, let alone making them right when he messes up.

This is unlikely. Lauda likes to deal with people privately via PM (in which he is often dishonest, and makes significant misrepresentations). I think it is more likely that lauda was petitioning multiple people trusted directly by DefaultTrust to be added to their trust lists.

This is very similar to what happened to dank several years ago. Borrow a couple hundred dollars worth of bitcoin for something, it doesn't work out, repaid many times (in terms of USD) the amount borrowed, only to not make a dent in the BTC amount of the loan. Dank eventually stopped trying to repay his debt.

Zazarb - I am not sure how much fiat currency you have, however what I have advised you do for longer term loans, and loans in which the borrower is running late, is when the BTC price is skyrocketing, offer to convert the loan into a USD (or other fiat currency) based loan for a fee, and if they agree, buy an equivalent amount of bitcoin on an exchange (when the borrower repays the loan, you can sell the bitcoin the repay you, so you end up with the same amount of USD and BTC). I am not saying you are wrong (I don't think you are wrong), however this would substantially increase your chances of getting repaid when BTC goes through the roof.

I would repeat what KWH said upthread, you both should try to reach a settlement agreement so that goose20 can make a payment that will satisfy the loan. Being that the payment is ~9 months late, repayment is doubtful otherwise

Updated OP with quote from Lauda and asking if hilariousandco and blazed agree with Lauda's attitude in this quote:

His stance is that he leaves open the possibility that he is a pill addict while implying he is not. He is trying to have it both ways.

I think this statement proves my point pretty well.

I would like to hear both blazed and hilariousandco say they condone this kind of attitude and behavior because that is what they are doing by keeping lauda on their trust lists.