I either need a cup of tea and a Bex or I hadn't been paying attention because I was looking for "Create your own trust list" - not to worry.

Have a look through this comprehensive list by @LoyceV [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk and then (because it's not on the list) also check out LoyceV's Trust list viewer - Create your own Trust list!.

Basically, to knock the others off of the top, you have to do three things

• Post quality posts instead of begging for merits.
• Do trades and or lending giving positives for genuine trustworthy trades (it doesn't matter if they are DT1/2 because they will also start to rank up - you'll start seeing old positives starting to become trusted giving you green trust if they have found you trustworthy in the trade).
• Review LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system - work out who you find is trustworthy and who you don't trust and "vote out" (for want of a better description) who you feel shouldn't be at the top of the Slippery Slope.

...but above all work on the quality of your posts and don't beg for merits like others do; it's embarrassing to see.

Just a quick heads-up that your thread LoyceV's Trust list viewer - Create your own Trust list! isn't in the OP list.   

A Chinese Yen?

Don't you mean a Chinese Yuan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan

Do you have any links to an English language site that has information on this Digital Chinese Yen?

Would it be possible to include *all* DT1's, not just those who have the additional benefit of being able to vote in DT2's (words to that effect) which is about the only difference between the DT1's you have shown so far and those you are not showing.

I see.

If I were to post five items that are conclusive instead of being thorough and posting a hundred items of proof, would that be more convincing?  That's probably not the best way to ask it, what I'm wondering is if I were to post five items of proof not one hundred, do you think more people would verify what I said is correct in relation to a scammer?

Perhaps you should learn to read:


After all... respect is a two way street.

Do you suppose Assetylene/TradeSatoshi were dry/test runs to see what worked and what didn't work and then they unveil unknown with what they think is the best of both worlds?

Information on how much was owned by the traders of Cryptopia would have had to have been lodged with the courts when they ask for a determination as to whether or not the crypto was customer property or assets of the company.

I'm surprised more people haven't gone to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust and added


to their trust lists given there's at least one flag against TripleHeXXX

It would seem that you have already answered your own question if you are reluctant to try the app given the concerns raised here.  Don't forget the OP has just one post to their name, so not much in the way of credibility.

An interesting question.


(Just a thought bubble here)  Perhaps if there are 100 links that also have archived links and you were to randomly choose five out of those 100 references, then (statstically speaking) wouldn't it stand to reason if you could randomly verify five to be valid, then more if not all references would be valid.

I'm always surprised at the sheer numbers of ETH investigations, it'll take me minutes to find connections, then an hour to type up a report.


Thanks, it's always good to do a little sweep out of the cobwebs.


I hadn't thought to check  ito-marketing as well as it was adding me, not removing.  It turns out that's yet another shill/alt of the others, so


etc.

It's probably all of the ones you listed and many more.  Brand New users will do that to garner some buzz around their brand, or in this case website.  Search engines will see the key word has been pushed up the rankings in a short length of time.

Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of your work, along with attributions (the one thing everyone here agrees on is despising plagiarism) -  When are you on next?  It's not good form to create a new UID, post an advertisement, then disappear.

Might want to update the OP to reflect it is now the second half of the last year of the second decade of the 21^st Century...  (A whole score of years of the 21^st Century no less).

Am counting down the hours (about nineteen give or take) until you officially open the doors.  Welcome in advance to our small part of the Forum, hopefully you'll be a success and stay for a while.

I think the OP is actually talking about Nuking the UID in question - there are pros and cons, one being the scammer has a clean slate as there is no record of their scamming while another disadvantage is if the UID was only Nuked to remove their posts, but not their trust feedback, or default trust lists, then their manipulation of either will remain unchecked.

There *were* about three or four in South East Queensland at one point.  I was able to use the infamous one that was seized by QPS both prior to their raid on a coffee shop and later on when it moved just up the road to a stationery supply shop.  It's now parked in a garage on the inner eastern suburbs while another ended up turned off in an inner western suburb.  All of them had been turned off by the start of 2018 prior to the spike in price.  I haven't heard where any are now.

I must have nodded off - how does "unnamed" relate to the Cryptodisaster of this particular thread?  (and what exactly is a Peatio 1.8+ version for those of us not in the know??)

Most if not all of the ones on DT1 who have me on distrust have peddled in trading accounts at one point or another.  The rest of what you said is just spin.


Maybe not - perhaps "like minded persons" instead?


Just to clarify, I've never investigated ETH addresses, but I will sift through BTC wallets and if there are dozens of wallet addresses that are used by multiple alts then the connections are there.  Solid Gold.


Correct.


Well... this statement is certainly contradictory.

A few people will, from time to time misinterpret my findings and instead of discussing the issue will simply state such chants as "you're wrong" or "here we go again" or "he's just a troll, ignore him" or even "he used to be good, but now..."  yet none of those who say these things will ever take the time to show where they think that I am wrong.  Sometimes when a person has a different interpretation, they will dig there heals in.  I'm not the only one guilty of that.

---

---

Saying "You are wrong" ≠ "You are actually wrong and here is the proof of where you are wrong". 

---

---

Whenever I have been contacted by anyone I've given negative trust feedback to has contacted me I will always walk them through the evidence I have presented (wallet addresses etc).

---

---

Again, another contradictory statement.

Simultaneous (or near enough) I asked LV8 a series of reasonable questions in their pursuit of becoming a merit font source. LV8's responses weren't exactly stellar then gave me the above.  He couldn't even explain the contradictory nature of *distrusting me* then leaving a glowing (but neutral) trust feedback.  That just doesn't add up.


Ho Ho Ho... It is a jolly thing you said...  How's that suchmoon.com and twitter.com/suchmoon sites (that you don't know anything about) going? - You say a silly thing = I say a silly thing...

---

---

In other news (and to get the discussion back on topic), does anyone have any questions about this:

http://loyce.club/trust/2020-06-27_Sat_05.02h/131361.html


I look to have had a minimum of 11 and a maximin of 27 UID's on my default trust list over the last 76 weeks.  I've usually added or subtracted just one or two in a week, but in week six I had what can be described as a massive clean out of my trust list.  I removed six and added two to my DT trust list taking that tally to eleven.  I removed ninety three UID's from my distrust list at the same time (this was covered in the "Reference post: Why have I excluded members on my trust list?" thread around the same time)

Week five I removed two from my trust list and just one week prior I added three UID's (who were then removed two week's later in week six).

---

---

Week 4:


I don't think I took much attention to it at the time, but let's have a look at something:


Without knowing *anything* about these UID's (and no having a sneek peak at the trust feedback) don't you suppose it's entirely possable some, if not all of these users are alts *just* looking at the two seperate pieces of information, (1) they all withdrew their default trust of me the same week and (2) some registered within a 24 hour period of each other and then in close proximity one by one they stopped being active.

Won't you at least conceed if you had never seen these users' names before that that is at least a *little* bit suspicious?

Now throw in the information from their trust feedback:



How surprising!  The ones in the "untrusted feedback" are the very ones who say that I am wrong - that I am crazy, that I am a Troll... yet here they are doing the exact same thing - identifying alts and slapping them with negatives.

Their feedback connects some of these alts to H8bussesNbicycles - so *if* you were to conceed that Thule is an alt of these listed above, then surely H8bussesNbicycles and Thule are alts?

Wasn't H8bussesNbicycles etc banned and or black-banned from voting in the DT?  Thule (and these alts listed just above) should also be banned / blacklisted from voting in the month to month DT.

Do you agree OP - @theymos ?

Did anyone happen to notice four of LV8's trust list have all given me distrust (same "gang" I wonder?)

and the last one is also wanting to become a merit font and like LV8 is refusing to answer my straight forward questions in their thread where they seek to become said merit font?


Not connected (but are DT1)


Refuses to answer my merit font questions:

Week 23 he added 37 UID's, (nearly all were DT1 that particular week) the week prior he added seven to take his total up to twenty.

Week 17 LV8 removed 19 UID's and added five (yourself included)

Week 16 and prior there was a mix of DT1/DT2 and non-rated, but from week 17 on-wards, there has been a strong emphasis on including only DT1.  (just click the >> button to watch the abrupt changes over time)