I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise.  

For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism:  I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions.  I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews.  That's it, as simply as I can articulate it.

 

Well, okay then.  I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine.  I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member.  I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives.

No, I don't think you're a scammer.  Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum.  I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with.  But I don't like how you build your trust-list.

Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned.  It's really, really NOT all about you.  Really.

I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy.  Why did you exclude me?  Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation.

There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network.  So I removed your inclusion.  

I know you've suggested before that DT2 inclusion should require at least two DT1 votes, and I tend to agree with this strategy.  It would mitigate the TrustSelfScratching abuse that goes on and prevent many shady users from getting voted to DT2.  I would suggest to add the same restriction for DT1 inclusion as well.  Along with the merit-based votes, two DT1 inclusions would also be required to qualify for DT1.  The system would still be decentralized, but a little more restrictive.

Why shouldn't these topics be discussed?  This forum doesn't need to be a "safe-space" where only one subject is discussed.  There are many topics that interest the diverse groups of people who spend time perusing this forum.  There's plenty to talk about that may only marginally pertain to bitcoin, and there's plenty to discuss that has nothing to do with bitcoin.

Sure, bitcoin is the one thing that brought us all here, so we all have that in common.  But we're all human with many other interests that we may also share with members of this community.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.



That's a separate subject altogether.  If you believe people are spamming shitposts just to get paid, you can report those posts.  The "Off-Topic" board isn't the only place that happens.

TecSHARE has definitely been manipulating his trust-list for selfish purposes, but I reject the idea that he's a scammer.  I believe anyone who deals with TecSHARE need not worry about getting scammed.  He has proven himself to be an honest trader.

But again, his policy of trust-list reciprocity is an obvious attempt to manipulate the system. 

You can look for folks advertising in the Services board, or create your own topic in that board.  There are plenty of experienced project developers here, but be very careful because there are also plenty of scammers looking to take advantage of people. 

The recent revelation of a security issue with Trezor (and keepkey along with other open-source firmware wallets) has got me thinking.  Satoshi Labs have addressed the vulnerability, and claim it's a remote threat.  None the less, I'm now quite concerned about losing my Trezor, or having it stolen.  I love my Trezor T, and since I use it to store the coins for my lending service I like bringing it along when I'm away from home, which I am now reluctant to do.

The solution; add a strong passphrase, which creates another wallet.  That, however brings up another question: If I do lose my Trezor and need to restore my wallet do I need another Trezor to be able to able access the newly created wallet?  Is there anyway to restore a passphrase encrypted Trezor wallet by using Electrum (for example?)  Does the passphrase essentially become an extension of the seed phrase?

I wanted to take some time to research this over the weekend, but didn't have time.  So, I'm asking the experts.

Thanks in advance. 

I can also confirm BitCryptex' observation.  I have a couple of altcoins stored on my Trezor T which I recently updated to the latest firmware.  My altcoin accounts are still accessible and I've experienced no issues.

From what I've seen the bitcoin-only firmware must be installed manually, in other words you would know you're installing a non-standard version.

Why would a lender take a risk on a coin you have no interest in holding?  If I gave you a loan, what assurance do I have that you'll actually repay?  You've admitted you don't care for the coin you're offering as collateral?


http://archive.fo/l6aCN

http://archive.fo/l6aCN

That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental.  Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it.  But now that you mention it, there is a significant resemblance.



I understand that big words are hard on you, but you really could have avoided all that hyperbolic kvetching if you would have taken the time to learn the definition of just one word:

Isn't this a ban-able offense?

The first thing I’d like to do is eliminate any ambiguity that might exist in the terminology.  Frequently the term “trust” is used in a a couple of ways:  The term might be used to refer to feedback left on a user’s review wall, and it might also be used to refer to inclusions or exclusions in one’s trust settings list.  For this article I’ll use the word as it’s defined by most dictionaries when it pertains to people; an assuredness and confidence you have for another individual’s honesty, ethics, and morals.  So what does it mean to trust someone?  No doubt trust means different things for different people.  In order to answer that question from my personal perspective I’ll try to paint a picture of a real life dilemma. 

Let’s say, hypothetically, I have a friend and her name is Alice.  Alice is a wonderful person, she’s generous and helpful.  Alice is always kind and in a pleasant mood.  And I trust Alice to always do the right thing.  If I was sick and needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account, I’d call Alice…  Unless her boyfriend, Bob is around.  Bob is a nice enough guy, but I suspect he’s embezzling money from his elderly grandmother.  Bob’s best friend, Jeff is frequently around as well, and he was convicted for selling stolen electronics.

One thing I’ve noticed about Alice is that she doesn’t have the best judgment in other people’s character.  She’s rather naïve and gullible, and tends to associate with people whom I do not trust.  The other thing about Alice; she doesn’t seem to know there’s a difference between liking an individual and trusting him.  She trusts everyone she likes, which I believe is also a lapse in judgment.

Now, that’s not to say that Alice is always making poor decisions, even when risks are involved.  But sometimes she does.  If she were to invite me to go rock climbing with her and her experienced father, I would accept.  However, if she were to invite me to a party on a house-boat with her friends who’ve been known to excessively indulge in alcohol and drugs, while mishandling firearms and explosives, I’d graciously decline.

If I were to apply the analogy above to the forum’s trust-system: I would give Alice a raving review for her trustworthiness by leaving her positive feedback on her review wall.  But when it comes to my trust-list settings I would not include Alice.  Although I thoroughly trust Alice and consider her a close friend, I have very little confidence in her ability to pick trustworthy people for her trust-list.  Of course Alice has set her trust-list to include her boyfriend, Bob and his friend, Jeff, both of whom I explicitly distrust.  If Alice’s bitcointalk.org account was voted to DT1, I would then exclude her from my trust-list.  By allowing Alice to remain on DT1 she would enable a suspected embezzler and convicted thief onto DT2.

Whether I’m a newbie or a legendary DT1 member, the trust-list settings I apply are going to be a reflection of the way I would handle real life analogous scenarios.  By excluding Alice from my trust-list I would eliminate the influence she and her friends would have on the trust-ratings I see in the trading sections of the forum.  It’s that simple.  I set my custom trust-list to elevate the ratings of those whose judgment I find valuable, and minimize the ratings left by those whose reviews I don’t find valuable.  I could still trust Alice as a trading partner, and value her friendship and contributions.

Recently there have been many dramatic events that stem from the forum’s trust-system.  Some members have levied suspicion that racism or nationalism is an influential factor in voting for DT1 inclusion.  Some local groups have indeed made consorted efforts to include members of their particular ethnic group into their trust-list, and it looks funny to the rest of us.  Some of the included members have some shady history, and legitimate negative reviews, making things look even more suspicious to the rest of the forum.  When other members respond by excluding the DT1 members of that ethnic group, ironically that’s when the allegations of racism and nationalism begin along with retaliatory trust-list exclusions.

I don’t suspect there’s anything malicious that leads one local group to include members of their ethnicity to their trust-list.  I think much of it stems from a misunderstanding of the system itself.  The word “trust” is repeatedly mis-used to describe many facets of somewhat complex system, and the repeated use of the word is compounding the confusion.

The retaliatory reaction from these members is also a bit concerning.  It goes beyond their own review visibility (which is being adversely affected,) but they could jeopardize the balance of the system in other smaller ethic groups or the forum as a whole.

I remember that conversation, and no he shouldn't be on DT2.

I don't want to speak for iasenko, but I don't think he is accusing JollyGood of being a participant in the bumping scheme.  I think what iasenko is saying is that JollyGood's efforts might be counter productive by giving the scammers someone legit to argue with and instigate.  I tend to agree; the best thing to do in situations like that is to report the offenders and post as infrequently as possible in the thread. 

This is a good one, for sure.  I don't know about you guys, but I get some of the most outlandish loan requests through PMs.  Mostly by newbies, of course.  I wan't to support new members (it wasn't that long ago that I was one,) so I do allow them to PM me, but sometimes I get so irritated by them I'm not sure it's worth it.

We should start a thread: "The Best Of Outlandish Loan Requests,"  because this forum doesn't have enough spam-mega-threads.  

This one could get things kicked off.  I mean really, who wouldn't want free money to buy a guitar?

In order to refute and rebut one would have to take the time to read your manifesto.  Ain't nobody got time for that.

@max2607

I'm sorry you've been going through hard times, but communication is mandatory in a situations like this.  You know you owe Hatcher money, you shouldn't need someone to PM you to remind you of that.  You are the only one responsible for paying back this loan, whether you were PM'd about it or not.  You could have logged on from time to time to check this thread, or you could have set up email notifications to inform you whenever there's a reply.  The least you could have done was keep Hatcher and DarkStar aware of your situation.  Just a little bit of communication and you could have avoided this mess all together.


The fact that you've taken the time to write the post above is commendable.    I hope you make an effort to pay Hatcher back to his satisfaction.  Until then my feedback review will remain.   

Just so there's a reference:  According to Hatcher's post above and my calculations you still owe Hatcher 0.02176725 BTC in principal, and the 0.015 BTC that was promised as interest.  That's a total of 0.03676725 BTC.

I closed the channel with BonsaiSoftware and tried to open one with ACINQ, but I don't have enough funds in the wallet anymore.  I'll fund the wallet soon and try again with a different node.  I may even try Bluewallet next to see if I run into fewer errors. 

Really?




And there's more, but I have real work to do.

That's possible.  I chose the node based on proximity using the map found here: https://explorer.acinq.co/
I'm connected to BonsaiSoftware's node, peer ID: 02a5fa844d310f582d209fe649352b225440b8a54e77361f229bb92ee263c87e6f