Why don’t you give one example of a public serious conversation about one of your trust ratings from the past month?

I agree. When someone leaves a questionable rating, the person who put said “DT2” member in the default trust network should be held accountable, by reputation or otherwise.

I think this nails it right on the head. When a lot (or several) people have negative trust when they are in no way reasonably a scammer they will often be effectively excluded from the community, and will face difficulty conducting business. This problem is exaggerated when lauda refuses to have any kind of public discussion about his ratings when they are disputed.

In the past, members were removed from the default trust network after a single inaccurate rating.

I like your logic. The fact that TC excluded you is clearly evidence that OgN and myself are in cahoots. /s

Here is where you are wrong my friend. Lauda has not disputed what I am saying. In fact he made it clear he will not answer without more evidence.

Well there is my word...

tl/dr: no denial of any kind of the pill addiction, the evidence currently presented would be easy to refute, however lauda chooses to not do this, likely out of fear he will be proven to be a liar.

HostFat

He is very shady, is not transparent in his ratings, ignores requests to appeal negative ratings, has questionable judgement....the list goes on.

He also does not leave negative trust against untrustworthy people (although some may be untrustworthy), he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons.

How large of a loan are you looking for?

The ultimate problem is entitlement spending, which makes up of over 2/3 of federal outlays verses ~48% 20 years ago. The increase in entitlement spending over the last 20 years is more than enough to account for the entire federal deficit.

Without entitlement reform, government borrowing will spin out of control regardless of what happens to defense and "discretionary" spending.

A default on our debt would likely result in massive deflation because so much of the economy relies upon this debt being worth face value (less losses due to interest rate increases), which would result in the economy essentially coming to a halt.

I am conflicted if this (or hyperinflation) will result in a net benefit for crypto, as there would be the (increased) risk of miners being seized because of gov/police corruption, which may result in more double spend attacks, which would lead to decreased confidence in crypto.

Now that lauda has been excluded from the Default Trust network due to three people trusted directly by DefaultTrust have excluded Lauda from their trust lists, I am calling on Blazed and hilariousandco to also remove Lauda from their trust lists.

Lauda is not someone who should be trusted by the community, between the trolling those who dispute his ratings, the extortion, the apparent pill addiction (that he has not denied) and other shady dealings, he is not someone who should have any kind of authority.

Some have argued that despite his overall very shadiness, Lauda is a net benefit to the community (which is a flawed reasoning), however many very reputable people in the community clearly disagree.

I would argue that if either Blazed or hilariousandco does not remove Lauda from their trust list in light of the above, they should be removed from being trusted directly by DefaultTrust.

edit:
Do blazed and hilariousandco agree with the above attitude?

edit2: as of the last trust dump, nearly 100 people have excluded lauda from their trust lists. It is clearly the will of the community for laudas ratings to not show up by default. Will blazed, hilariousandco and salty follow the will of the community?

edit3: it appears as if at least 6 purchased accounts have added to lauda to their trust list, all owned by the same person.

I believe this would be someone who is described as "someone familiar with the matter".

I would also point out that on many occasions lauda has responded to threads complaining about his negative ratings saying that he does not want to reveal his mythology, even when those being accused fairly clearly deny the accusation; Lauda's responses to these types of threads generally consists of what I think is reasonable to say is trolling.

In this case (I believe, and would argue that) lauda has not even denied the subject allegations, so as you put it, my case is flimsy, (maybe you consider my case to have a 1% chance of being true), however Lauda's case is non-existent (so I argue), so it would be 1% chance of being true, verses 0% for his side.

Another point I would make is if this was a separate issue, perhaps another reputable person is being accused by a person with little reputation of scamming via a deal done on say Skype, posts skype chat logs (which can easily be faked, as you point out) to backup his claim, most frequently, many people would say they will wait for [reputable person] to respond before coming to a judgment, and after a certain time without a response, more and more people will come to the conclusion that [reputable person] is a scammer.

I think it is probably save to believe that accepting Lauda having a pill/drug addiction would make lauda look bad, and many would probably question his judgment and would question if they can trust him with their money -- this is not a desirable outcome for lauda. We have one post (the post you quoted previously), in which I believe Lauda was asking to see the evidence against him, however you believe this is a denial on the part of lauda -- we can agree to disagree on this.  There is a second post, in which Lauda makes it more clear that he is not going to respond to my claim. Then we have a third post which implies the 1st post is a denial, however it very clearly leaves open the possibility that it is not.

As it stands now, Lauda has the best of both worlds. As it stands now, if someone brings up a concern about a potential pill addiction, Lauda, or (more likely), a 3rd party and/or a sockpuppet can point to the 3rd post saying that Lauda denied having a pill addiction and if questioned, can say the 2nd post was him trolling. On the other hand, if down the line, additional evidence is presented that Lauda has a pill addiction, then he can at least say that he did not lie about the situation (he might even through in there that he is trying to get help/better/ect.), would point to the 2nd post to say that he did not address my claims, and if questioned about the 3rd post, say that the post did not say he was confirming he denied the pill addiction in the 1st post, and would say the 3rd party and/or sockpuppet who backed lauda (in pointing to the 3rd post as evidence that lauda was denying the addiction) did not speak for lauda.

I think having the ability to give two different answers is inherently dishonest.



No. I am saying that someone told me a fact that they know because someone else (actually other people) gave this person information. You can choose to take my own reputation, your believe as to my judgment, and the fact that I am not presenting information (currently) to form your own conclusion -- you would probably also consider any evidence that would refute my claims, including a denial by the accused.

I cannot make the same evaluation with you statement because of the "maybe" clause. Your statement could be untrue, but that would not make you a liar because you clearly said that it might not be true. I consider you to be an honest person, but I don't think you have received that PM, I think you are trying to make a point, but I think your point is invalid. If you do have a PM from a 3rd party, I would ask how confident you are that this person actually can speak for Lauda; as previously mentioned, if this turns out to not be true, lauda could simply say that his sockpuppet (or other third party) does not speak for him.  

It is difficult to prove this, but I don't think he is doing this.

If you are looking for a signed message from lauda ordering pills over long periods of time, or a video of someone I claim to be lauda taking pills, I will tell you this evidence does not exist, and does not exist for almost every other drug addict out there.

When someone in the media publishes something, they will say how they know said fact, and will ask the subject of an article for a comment/response. Sometimes the subject will not respond to the request for comment, and when this happens some readers might wait for a response before deciding if they believe the article. Sometimes the subject will respond, and when they do not explicitly deny the allegations, most readers will accept what is published as fact, even if they personally do not know enough information themselves to come to this same conclusion, or even if there is not enough public information to prove this in court. Sometimes the subject will outright deny the allegation, at which point readers will have to use the available facts to evaluate if they believe what is being said or not, and sometimes the writer may publish additional evidence if sufficient number of readers do not believe them.

See my above comment.

I think you are wrong. I don't agree this is a denial, however if you were to give (probably too much of) a benefit of the doubt, this is another of Lauda's non-denial denials, similar to his response to allegations that Lauda sold accounts in the past, when he said "I have not...purchased any accounts to my knowledge" -- he is giving himself an out in case someone presents additional evidence against him.

I would also point out that after he posted what you quoted, he was more clear that he is not going to explicitly deny being addicted to pills
I think it is important that Lauda, again tried to imply that you were right about this being a denial, after he was very explicit in saying he is not responding without seeing evidence.

Using the word "maybe" is very different from outright saying that you have this information. I would also point out that denying this via a 3rd party, in private is yet another way (actually multiple ways) for lauda to get "out" of being exposed as lying to discredit allegations against him if additional evidence is presented against him.

The rationale behind pushing the claim that you are "new here" is obvious. It is also obvious that you are in fact not new here. Why don't you just say that you have been around longer than your account's age implies and just say that you have forgotten your password to your old account?

The standard of evidence is the same as what is frequently published in the mainstream media. This is not a baseless claim. The "other" people who have posted not to dispute this are wrong. You can either accept what I am saying as fact, or you can dispute it and others can judge based on our respective reputations (assuming of course additional evidence is not presented, at which point the additional evidence + reputations will be considered by others).

You are saying that no one knows anything about you? I know that is not true.

Why don't you go as far as to explicitly deny that you have a pill addiction?

Sorry for the delay (life happens/busy).

I will start by saying that I will ask my source if I can give you his name, however I wont be able to recommend him doing so.

My source tells me that he was told by people close to Lauda that Lauda has a serious pill addiction. My source also tells me that Lauda has often talked about drugs in "chatrooms" (which could be a number of things). You knowing who my source is will not really change anything, you knowing who my source is would still make this an anon's word against Lauda's word -- actually Lauda has not actually denied this, so it would be against nothing.

Lauda having a pill addiction may or may not be a big deal, however if Lauda were to outright deny this, then my source might provide more information, might provide names of those who gave this information (with things like chat logs/PMs), or those who directly know of this might come forward themselves to prevent Lauda from lying about this.


Lauda also has a history of refusing to explicitly deny engaging in shady behavior after being accused of said shady behavior, including when evidence is presented. For example, when it was proven that Lauda owned an account that placed bids to buy accounts, he left himself an 'out' in case someone came along with proof that he actually purchased forum accounts with that account (Lauda giving negative trust for those who trade accounts when he very clearly did so in the past reeks of trying to stifle the competition). He also has not addressed the claim that he is the same as ThePharmacist, who is someone who, as of recently has backed Lauda in many threads, and to my knowledge has not substantially opposed Lauda in a dispute.

You are not new here. You are very clearly advertising the fact that you are a tor user, that you value privacy and that you are new here. I understand that you are not trading around here, however someone advertising they are new is usually a pretty good indication they are not, and that they are up to no good. As someone who is paying attention, it is very clear that you are not new here beyond the above. Perhaps you are unable to access your previous account(s) because you have forgotten your password.


It is good to see TC back. Maybe he can add Lauda to his exclusion list.

I am not ignoring this. I am working on some research about a somewhat related issue so I can respond.

I am confused as to the purpose of this loan.

Well it is too bad that I am saying that I have a source that says you have a pill addiction. You are not disputing this claim, so it appears that based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, you have a pill addiction...

Bitfinex holds funds on behalf of their customers. They do not own money held on behalf of their customers, however they do own money earned from commissions/fees/etc.