Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant.
Everyone who left Vod appropriate red-trust were removed from DT as a result. I'm sure that's not a problem, right? Here you "forgot" to include the rest of the quote that completes the idea: Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.
I have removed the 500 BTC risked
This clearly means the negative left to bill gator is no longer deserved (if it ever was).
Again this is absurdly getting out of control. Would you all learn how to use the trust system and leave negative trust only if you think the user has scammed or will steal as soon as they get a chance? Leave negative trust only if you think this label is deserved:  This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.
|
|
|
|
These are templates for comments. Evereone has it.
Please do let me know where you got these templates. It does seem a lot of users here are using it. |
|
|
|
These words were written by me in advance, because I do not have a good knowledge of English and for quick work I did it for myself. I had a lot of projects. Therefore, so many posts. Please unblock my account
Did you write everything posted here? If so the only way Belal had access to it and copied you is if you posted that somewhere online. If you really wrote all that and published it then post some proof, tell us where exactly you posted it and when. If you copied that text from somewhere else then it's still plagiarism, even if you didn't copy directly from the forum. |
|
|
|
Please note I've added a local rule for this thread, as stated in OP: Local rule:
Vod can't quote or mention OgNasty, directly or indirectly.
OgNasty can't quote or mention Vod, directly or indirectly.
Let's stay on topic. (However this rule applies even for on topic posts) |
|
|
|
I'll would almost guarantee that he has the home address and real name of OGNasty in case something like theft were to happen
I sure hope so. I'd consider that absolutely required, regardless of whether a multisig address is used, for security, to sign the contract and for tax purposes. That would also allow to make sure the chosen treasurers are really different people and not related to each other, which worried QS. Whatever security implemented at the moment can be kept and improved. Using a multisig address just adds even more security, nothing needs to be compromised as far as I know or has been exposed here. |
|
|
|
I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.
BTC500 to be held by one single person? Definitely not. Not anyone. I think those funds are at risk. 7 people for a 4-of-7 multisig address so 4 signatures are required? Absolutely yes. Much less trust is required in that case. |
|
|
|
I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.
I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee. Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough. In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course). You think that 0.1% of the total is not a fair escrow price? What % do you think would be fair than? I see a ton of escrows on here that want between 0.5-1% Why does it have to be based on a percentage? Maybe it makes sense for small deals (along with a minimum) but not for higher amounts paying every month. Based on the treasurer's obligations posted on one the contracts, I estimate the treasurer must work not more than a few hours per month, or less. At BTC0.05 (currently just under $400), that's at least $100 per hour for their work. I think that's more than enough regardless of what percentage of the total represents. Edit: Actually much fewer hours and therefore much more per hour after checking the number of transactions of the treasure address. But this is not the main point at all. |
|
|
|
I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.
I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee. Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough. In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course). |
|
|
|
This has been suggested several times and I think it's extremely important. I see it as essential for the forum's funds security and I don't see any disadvantages at all. Current treasurer OgNasty agrees multisig should be used. I would suggest choosing several very trustworthy users and creating x-in-y addresses, where x is at least 3 (to avoid collusion) and y is at least x+2 (to avoid an accident to lock the funds). 4-in-7 addresses could be a good option. Theymos, is there any reason this hasn't been implemented yet? What are the disadvantages? Funds have been lost and more could be lost in the future. Local rule:Vod can't quote or mention OgNasty, directly or indirectly. OgNasty can't quote or mention Vod, directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
Allow me to add the steps that should happen BEFORE the ones per your guidance Ecuamobi:
I agree. Any user (and especially DT members) must investigate and directly ask the user before leaving negative trust, unless it's obvious the user deserves negative trust. But the user who receives the negative trust can't really do anything about these previous steps so I keep my answer to your question, regardless of whether the DT user followed the correct guidelines. |
|
|
|
I launched this thread with an example but it was still launched with the question "how do you prevent potential abuse from a Default Trusted member", from here I will leave matter experts to decide if that is a valid question or not and what is the answer to it.
The main thing to do is to determine whether it's a case of abuse or just a misunderstanding or being too harsh, and try to be reasonable instead of leave fake retaliation feedback and attack the user who left the trust you disagree with. You failed completely on this. Some steps I'd recommend to handle DT abuse: - First, read the left feedback and the reference (if any) and try to understand the reason.
- If you don't understand it or find it unfair then PM that user to ask for more information and explain your side of the story.
- Avoid reaching wrong conclusions like the one you reached. "It must be to kill competition because I can't find any other reason considering it's impossible I'm wrong. " is usually wrong.
- Avoid leaving fake retaliation feedback. You can leave negative feedback if you know for a fact it's abuse after gathering some proof. (I see you haven't fixed this error of yours until now)
- If it's not possible to solve it via PM and you still disagree with the trust then create a thread on Reputation explaining everything, without attacking anyone. If most users agree with you then almost certainly the DT user will remove the negative trust. If the community reaches the conclusion it's really abuse (or unfairly harsh) then you can be sure the DT user will be removed from DT by other DT1 users.
|
|
|
|
Most users are posting the same cons against this without knowing how the technology works. As I said, the fingerprint is not sent anywhere. And the username or email must be entered too. Simplifying things: you can think of your fingerprint as the password that encrypts the private key used to sign a message. Only the public key (during registration) and the signed message (during logging in) is sent to the server along with the username or email. The private key and fingerprint is not sent, the same as your wallet password and address private keys are never sent anywhere. Do check this site if you're interested (and do read it before posting here): https://webauthn.io/ |
|
|
|
The best way would be to implement https://webauthn.ioThe fingerprint information is not really sent to the website, but just a "the user is who he says he is" message. A compatible browser is required for that. As far as I know it's quite secure, and USB/NFC keys could be used too instead of/besides fingerprints. However there's no SMF plugin for this (I might be wrong). Considering there is already an SMF 2FA plug-in ready to be installed and it's not because of the risk of damaging something, I don't think there's any chance to implement webauthn in the foreseeable future, as actmyname said. |
|
|
|
I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback.
Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam". OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation. I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree.
I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying. |
|
|
|
I have found that it is very difficult to create a good trust list, even if you have only a small number of people on your list. The recursive implications are so big because people you trust enter on your Depth 0, so you trust them one level deeper than DT1 (assuming you've included DefaultTrust). A way around that would be to add them to an alt-account, and then add just that alt-account to your Trust list. Having deep set to 2 makes sense if using default trust. However since a few years ago when I set up my own trust list I've been using deep 1. It's much more easy to handle. So basically I trust feedback left by those I've added to my list and those they've added to theirs, but that's it. I also have DefaultTrust on my list so as a side effect I only trust DT1 but not DT2. But the solution is adding DT2 users to my list directly if I miss their feedback. |
|
|
|
If mods dont understand the language I am using, You don't know whether the mod understands the language you're using, so don't ask us to explain something that's probably not true. My guess is he either does understand it, uses a translator, or knows someone he trusts who speaks the language. Almost certainly he had some way of knowing those posts needed to be deleted. But we're wasting our time here. If you're really interested then PM Cyrus (who is the only moderator of that section) and ask him. |
|
|
|
That should not be the case. Of course having multiple accounts doesn't deserve negative trust. However abuse does. Do provide an example of accounts being tagged just for belonging to the same person, without any abuse. |
|
|
|
If you check the reference link, then it can be seen that me, as well as two junior members were accused of the same "crime". In the end I was red-tagged, while the other two were let-off. I couldn't find any other possible explanation other than my political views.
I don't have an issue if she is red-tagging everyone who is bumping the ANN threads. That's not happening. Only a few people are getting tagged for this. If there is such a rule, then it should be applicable for everyone irrespective of their rank or reputation. Either she should tag everyone who bumps the threads, or she should not tag anyone who does that.
I am not making this post in order to get my red trust removed. I don't think that I'll ever receive fair treatment here. I am making this post so that Lauda will think twice before nuking the accounts of other people.
I have seen the reference and the fact 2 other accounts received negative trust and then got it removed. My first guess was they recognized their offence and promised not to do it again. I get you're frustrated but you can't accuse her of abusing the trust system for political views if you don't have any proof whatsoever. At least you didn't leave a fake retaliation negative as a lot of users do. You should try calmly explaining your case instead of attacking and making false accusations. That would be a much better approach. That being said, I will leave a counter positive trust on your profile unless I get more information from Lauda or somebody else that makes me change my mind. |
|
|
|
|
I agree negative trust for this is undeserved, unless there's more to it I'm not seeing. I'd leave negative trust for providing this services for a known scam project for example but not in general.
The punishment for providing a service to basically spam should be handled by a moderator/admin instead of DT.
Lauda, could you provide more information? Am I missing something?
OP, why are you accusing Lauda of "silence those differ from her politically" instead of just being too harsh? What political difference do you think you have? What hidden motivations are you accusing her of having?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
