It seems that Lauda is not interested in denying he is addicted to and/or abusing drugs. Very interesting indeed...
Of course not. Well, I guess others can interpret the lack of a denial/dispute themselves. |
|
|
|
I have been told by someone very reputable, and whom I trust that Lauda has a serious pill addiction. Hearsay. Surely this should be very easy for Lauda to dispel this by simply denying that he has a pill addiction. However he has failed to do this. Why do you think Lauda would not quickly deny that he is addicted to pills? Instead, Lauda is wanting to know how much evidence there is against him, and wanting to see the evidence that he has an addiction. All while Lauda's "friend" The Pharmacist is backing him, and preemptively saying that Lauda should be in "DT". What do you think this is an indication of? Do you have any information about what kind of pills he is taking? Over the counter or prescription? If they are prescription drugs he might have been illegally obtaining them via the dark net or paying off pharmacists. Are you sure he is actually trying to obtain more drugs beyond his prescription if he has any? Opiates are hard to shake off anyways. My understanding is that Lauda uses a large percentage of his earnings from his various dealings around here to fund his drug addiction, which implies the drugs being abused are not being consumed legally.
It seems that Lauda is not interested in denying he is addicted to and/or abusing drugs. Very interesting indeed... |
|
|
|
More than anything, I really think it comes down to whether or not its typically acceptable to tag owners of multiple accounts with negative trust, just because they own multiple accounts. Second comes whether or not trading/selling merit is generally acceptable, and to what extents.
The general consensus between the remaining active DT members that do attempt to *improve* the forum (not the DT members that are active and don't really do anything in that regard) is yes. Any hidden alt is shady in my book and warrants some type of feedback for awareness, negative or neutral may depend on the situation. My issue has been how much proof is required to reasonably match someone as an alt. I try to conform myself to a community standard that I thought was in play but others seem to cross that line unchallenged, so I'm not sure why I'm holding back. I do not want to dampen any progress that may be getting made but I see a lot of these unusual merit links as hunches because they aren't really based on any hard proof, unless there are other links between the accounts that can be found in addition to the unusual merit activity. I've been led to believe that it is not safe to conclude someone is an alt based solely on potential shared wallets... which I would think is a more decent link than sending merits to another account, but again, my impression is that this isn't enough to reasonably link accounts. That being said, it is hard for me to ever conclude that it would be ok to accept someone as an alt because they sent X amount of merits to someone... even though my gut feeling says otherwise in some of the cases. blockchain evidence is fairly strong evidence that two accounts are controlled by the same person, provided you can rule out that the relevant addresses belonging to a business/website (eg, a deposit address). You can potentially rule out an account being sold (which to some people may be a separate reason to warn others) by looking at the security log and checking for password changes/resets. There may be some instances in which a close group of friends share a wallet, especially for low value transactions like signature campaigns, however I am not entirely sure how to rule that out. It would probably be a bad idea to use received merit as a basis to corroborate linked accounts because it is fairly trivial to make someone look like a scammer if this is used. others seem to cross that line unchallenged, so I'm not sure why I'm holding back I believe a big reason this is not being challenged is because many see these people as giving out negative trust for not-transparent reasons, and fear retribution. I also believe these people have a high percentage of false positives in leaving negative trust against the innocent. Any trust that you leave (and trust left by those directly on your trust list) is ultimately a reflection on your reputation. Leaving negative trust against an innocent person can have negative consequences for said person (many of these consequences may not ever be apparent to you), and is especially troubling if negative trust is left with flimsy evidence and/or when reasonable explanations (explaining innocence) cannot be ruled out. |
|
|
|
I am willing to fund upto .75BTC in exchange for 2.5% interest
sorry i required the full amount i can do max 3% for monthly interest with option to pay back sooner I can fund the entire amount of this loan, subject to the below terms: term of loan: 1 month Amount of loan: $26,000 USD (BTC equivalent) tied to USD value USD/BTC exchange rate: bitfinex - both at time of loan and at time of repayment collateral: 1895 ETC - subject to my blockchain review to confirm no evidence the ETC can be traced to stolen funds interest: 3.5% per month if loan is not repaid by due date, 1% will be added to interest due, I will wait until the loan is 5 days past due, and will liquidate the ETC to repay the loan, plus 3.5% interest, plus 1% late fee and will return the remaining amount to you, if any. The loan can be repaid early, and can be repaid by selling the ETC with no penalty. LMK. |
|
|
|
Surely this should be very easy for QS to dispel he is a pedophile by simply denying that he is one. However he has failed to do this.
I can unequivocally say this is not an accurate description of me. It was ignored in the past because (as you know), there is no basis for making that statement. No one has claimed to have any evidence to backup that statement, nor have I asked for any evidence to backup this statement. The same cannot be said about Lauda: You could provide proof,
I am not going to explicitly make any statement until I see at least some reasonable *logs* that need addressing.
Two questions:
a) What kind of pills? Just curious.
b) Chat logs?
|
|
|
|
I have been told by someone very reputable, and whom I trust that Lauda has a serious pill addiction. Hearsay. Surely this should be very easy for Lauda to dispel this by simply denying that he has a pill addiction. However he has failed to do this. Why do you think Lauda would not quickly deny that he is addicted to pills? Instead, Lauda is wanting to know how much evidence there is against him, and wanting to see the evidence that he has an addiction. All while Lauda's "friend" The Pharmacist is backing him, and preemptively saying that Lauda should be in "DT". What do you think this is an indication of? |
|
|
|
I am interested for Lauda to more specifically address this. Are you going to explicitly deny? Or is there truth to you having a drug addiction? If the accusation turned out to be completely false (i.e. intentionally malicious), would you reveal the source? Just curious.
If in my sole judgment I was fed intentionally inaccurate information, I may consider revealing my source. This would only apply if the information is materially inaccurate. As an aside, this is the world of bitcoin we're in, and I have no doubt there are a lot of members--trusted or otherwise--who are into illicit substances. As long as illegal stuff isn't being promoted here, I think people should feel free to do what they want. I am not talking about casual/recreational use, I am talking about an addiction. There is a major difference between the two. |
|
|
|
I have been told by someone very reputable, and whom I trust that Lauda has a serious pill addiction.
From what I understand, Lauda is very frequently talking about various drugs in chat rooms.
People close to Lauda have apparently been saying that lauda has a serious pill addiction, which is something I would tend to believe.
I have been told by at least one reputable person that the intent behind Lauda's shady behavior (such as extortion) is to fund his pill addiction, and drug use.
Should an alleged pill addiction be a cause for concern? Would this affect his judgment? Should this person be trusted? Does this create any conflicts?
I assume my source does not want to be named out of fear of retribution from Lauda.
Update: After >24 hours from when Lauda first responded to this thread, Lauda has yet to in any way deny, nor disputed he has an addiction to pills, nor has he denied that he abuses illegal drugs. As an update to this thread:
The information I received was from someone who I trusted at the time, but I have seen to bend and stretch the truth. A review of my other private conversations with this person reflects even more egregious examples of this, including examples of while I cannot affirmatively say is a lie, some representations are what I would consider to be dishonest. I am not going to comment on my source, as I previously told this person I would keep his identity secret, although some may guess based on semi recent forum events.
When I opened this thread, I took what this person said at face value and did not ask to see any underlying evidence. The claimed evidence was already shaky. For this I was wrong and I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
I can only speculate what the truth is in regards to MP, and if they are solvent. However I believe this whole fiasco regarding MP, starting from when Ryan owned it is evidence that the business model to run a casino with a community funded bankroll is not a sustainable business model.
There are simply too many competing interests for this model to succeed. The added competing interests of the app owners only amplified this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
You can disable ads if you are a donator (cost - 10BTC), or a VIP (cost - 50 BTC). Otherwise you need to wait until you are a hero member, as Salty mentioned.
Perhaps this would not be a bad thing if an additional feature was added to Copper Membership that allows users to disable forum ads, I would think the cost of the membership would likely outweigh the value of the lost revenue from having one less person viewing forum ads.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that theymos actually said that users should post 10 posts that are from within the most recent couple of months in order to apply to be a merit source.
|
|
|
|
|
The merit system is still very new, users are still leaning and experimenting with it, and there is the strong potential it will be tweaked in the coming months to address issues discovered.
I believe any effort into tracking stats about the merit economy this early into its life will probably be of little use, and will contain mostly outlier data. After a few months, especially after most of the merit initially given to various users is spent, stats about merit will be more useful.
|
|
|
|
We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.  I think he meant something else. Since actmyname is not answering and OP clearly acted like a jackass here. He nagged and annoyed actmyname so much that too before his 3 day rule, so now that actmyname has blocked him, he wants other DT members to give him "green trust" to nullify his rating, This guy gets it. One person leaving negative trust does not speak for the entire community, and as such others who disagree with a particular negative rating can counter said negative rating with a positive rating of their own. This is a basic feature of the trust system. I would not find it unreasonable for someone to ask for help with a problem, especially when the person being asked is sympathetic to their issue. Perhaps Lauda's pill addiction makes it difficult to understand this. |
|
|
|
This thread seems dead. Why?
I could think of several reasons: 1. Bitfinex abandoned the thread years ago, which disincentivizes people from posting about their problems or from bringing up suggestions Various bitfinex reps are fairly active on reddit, both on r/bitfinex and r/bitcoinmarkets I would not be surprised if someone from bitfinex's support reviews this thread for issues. |
|
|
|
I wonder why Jet Cash merited this shitpost.
I understand that your pill addiction can sometimes make it difficult to exercise critical thinking, however there is a difference between a "shitpost" and something you disagree with. [...]a post in broken English vaguely describing a half-baked, nonsensical idea somehow, implicating KYC privacy-rape in an unspecified manner, does indeed meet common criteria for being described as a “shitpost”. 1 - not everyone speaks english as their 1st language, and the OP cannot post this thread in a local section. 2 - A variety of KYC-like proposals have been discussed over the years to allow for people to do certain things, however the political views of most of the long standing members around here would probably be against this. I understand that other forums and marketplaces do require KYC to enable various functions. 3 - Similarly, many people have made proposals preventing members from having multiple accounts via various technical means. I don't agree with the OP, however to classify something you disagree with to be a "shitpost" and to describe someone you disagree with as a "scammer" both blindly, does nothing other than make this plan an echo chamber. |
|
|
|
Sorry to rain on your parade, but unless another member of DT-1 excludes him as well, he will still be in DT-2.
theymos excluding his is a pretty strong message. From a technical standpoint, either Blazed needs to remove actmyname from his trust list, or someone else trusted by DefaultTrust needs to exclude him, however Blazed may very well be at risk of being removed from being trusted by DefaultTrust if he does not remove actmyname. |
|
|
|
I wonder why Jet Cash merited this shitpost.
I understand that your pill addiction can sometimes make it difficult to exercise critical thinking, however there is a difference between a "shitpost" and something you disagree with. I believe the ultimate purpose of the merit system is to make it more difficult to earn via signature campaigns if you are unable to make coherent posts. |
|
|
|
Whenever a new feature, like merit or the feedback system is added, it takes the community a few weeks or months to figure out what is or isn't acceptable. I'm personally of the opinion that merit issues aren't related to feedback, and you shouldn't get negative feedback even for "abuse" of the merit system, whatever that ends up meaning.
Its kind of a rough position to be in, but you shouldn't worry about it too much.
Ironically the merit system was introduced to try prevent people from leaving negative feedback on poor posters. It's a tricky situation to police but people shouldn't be allowed to trade merit or leave it for their alts as it's deceptive and defeats the purpose of the system in the first place. I can't really see any other way than negative really but users shouldn't be allowed to get away with it otherwise everyone will just do it. At least if there's the threat of negative for users caught engaging in it then most people will think twice about it. If there's nothing to lose by attempting to trade merit then the practice will become rife. I think you are wrong about this, and I will explain why. Ignoring the merit that everyone received at the introduction of the merit system, users will receive merit because someone believed they in some way made a good post, and decided this person should receive a portion of the limited number of merit points this person can send. The fact that there are a limited number of merit points, along with the fact that merit points ultimately allow someone to earn money via signature campaigns means that merit points give value to the person receiving said merit. I don't think it is appropriate to tell people they have to use their valuable property in only certain ways, especially when these "rules" will frequently change (often after the fact), and will not be applied evenly. If someone were to buy merit to participate in a signature campaign (or otherwise), and are a crappy poster, they will either get banned, will not be hired to participate in a signature campaign, or both. The buying of merit would serve as somewhat of a non-refundable deposit allowing them to participate in a signature campaign. At the end of the day, a person will not be able to receive merit if at one point, a merit source (who cannot --in theory-- sell merit) decides it will be appropriate to issue merit to someone. In reality, when you are sending 1 merit to someone, you are effectively sending them ~1.9934 merit including the merit they can send to others. |
|
|
|
Because these guys have integrity, something that cannot be said about you.. neither of these guys would sell merit so this thread is a non starter. People who know aTriz and Lauda will stand up for them as they are above such actions, I am sure the same would happen for me if you made a similar thread actually the same for anyone who is posting in Lauda or aTriz's defence.
Look up the meaning of integrity, then look at your own actions..
Peace out
I suggest you do the same and then start acting as it is defined. Tagging members against proof with red trust or tagging members for actions that the tagger is performing himself is not integrity but hypocricy and scam. Unfortunatly lauda does not have any intregrity. |
|
|
|
|
This is an example as to why the trust system is in serious need of reform.
Trust is not moderated individually, however it should be clear the trust system has taken a turn in a way that was not intended. This is an example of trust being given out based on speculation and conjecture with little to no basis in fact, and even if factual, the conclusion that those receiving negative trust is a “scammer” is doubious.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
