you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not.
LOL. That's objectively bullshit. Droning on about a misconception you had about what I meant when I said "the vast minority" which was clarified before you even started questioning me about it... Either you have poor reading comprehension or were mustering an attack, take your pick. you can accept the truth (see below) or you can keep dwelling on a nothingburger. Right, so the "truth" is you continued to have a misconception about my words after I had already clarified what I meant. That renders your assumption unreasonable. - If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag? "fraud" is a necessary standard. i assume it would fall under "violation of applicable laws". intentional deception to secure unlawful gains seems to apply here. if we're talking about coin-stealing malware, then it constitutes theft as well. if proven, it seems tag-worthy. - If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag? this one is pretty loaded. what does "obvious" mean? do we actually know it's a ponzi scheme? what do you mean by "supporting"? are we talking about actively operating the scheme, actively shilling for it? wearing a paid signature advertisement? - If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag? if proven, this seems like another case of fraud. victims are being intentionally deceived for the operator's unfair gain. red tags seem okay under this scenario, assuming the proof is well-documented, but i'm curious to see if there are opposing arguments. thank you for engaging in a real discussion about the topic. this is exactly the sort of stuff i'm hoping we can discuss and build consensus around. As reasonable as they may be, I'm not really interested in your opinions on these subjects. These questions were directed at TECSHARE as he is the one who opened this thread. Your answers have been noted, however. |
|
|
|
I cant see that post show as missing !
You can't see the Investigations board because you are still a Newbie. I'm not sure if Jr Members can see it either, but I sent you a merit, so try looking at it again in a few minutes. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227910One of the interesting things about the owner, Francesco Alibrandi, is that he was a shareholder of the Cryptopia exchange. As such, his full address is listed here: https://www.nzlbusiness.com/company/registered/Cryptopia-LimitedAnother interesting connection is that the founder and developer of Cryptopia also worked for Trade Satoshi. I wonder if he had anything to do with either or both exchanges shutting down. I wrote all about it in the Investigations thread. |
|
|
|
People need to faind who is this admin an adress or someting to make him a visit !
This camer need to pay for all money hi take from users .
Found it. I posted what is likely to be his home address in an Investigations thread I just created: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227910Everyone who lost money and is looking to have a lawyer contact him (Francesco Alibrandi is the name of the exchange owner), feel free to take a look and leave anything that might help bring this guy to justice. I know they still have 8 days before the exchange is officially "closed," but the fact that the site is now in maintenance after refusing to allow customers to withdraw their coins makes things look pretty grim. Good luck to all. |
|
|
|
Here's my Sunday Haiku. Boating accident:
A mermaid mind-melded me,
Stole my mnemonic |
|
|
|
Now you are just trolling. Remember who you are talking to, after all... I put them on ignore a while ago and am not looking back. you and suchmoon may be here to attack people, but i am not.
LOL. That's objectively bullshit. Droning on about a misconception you had about what I meant when I said "the vast minority" which was clarified before you even started questioning me about it... Either you have poor reading comprehension or were mustering an attack, take your pick. i am perfectly fine with current DT members retaining their status---i'm just hoping we can pressure them towards more objective standards, and that the more abusive ones will be forced to rein in their abuse or be excluded.
Well, lucky for you, that's how the system was designed to operate and is currently operating. None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.
Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting.
This is all purely projection. You've been given several opportunities to bring evidence to your claims and support your overall points (which you are making, therefore the burden of proof is on you) but instead you chose to engage in more projection, which is one of the reasons why people are coming to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite. As far as bringing forth evidence that "mass tagging stops scams", all that can be provided is anecdotal evidence where people say they might have invested in x if y had not tagged z, which you might be quick to dismiss as non-evidence anyway. What is probable, however un-provable, is that career scam busters like Bruno, Vod, cryptodevil and tmfp have likely saved investors hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of dollars over the years, and this includes people arriving at the forum through Google searches and other websites in addition to forum members. Its true that sometimes an innocent account gets caught up in a "mass tagging" and tagged when it shouldn't have been, but the great thing about the trust system is that the tag can easily be removed if a case is presented as to why it was incorrectly left. I see it happen on occasion. This is why comparisons to Mao and so forth are inaccurate as there is no fixing a murder. Let's use this opportunity to nail down a few uncertainties: - If an account leaves a link to malware-laced software, do they deserve a red tag? - If an account is knowingly supporting an obvious Ponzi scheme, do they deserve a red tag? - If an account announces an ICO with a plagiarized white paper and fake team members, do they deserve a red tag? Its OK if you think the answer is "no" to any or all of these -- let's just start with some examples as they are all pretty objective cases of an account having scammer intentions even if there is no proof of them actually being one. |
|
|
|
did some one get a talking to for abusing their authority? If some one got a talking to about abuse of authority it wasn't me! I am not privy to details about anyone else getting a talking to. He's going to say he was "just asking a question." What, he's not allowed to ask questions now?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? That's why Paranoid Personality Disorder is a disorder -- its something that can't easily be corrected, and by its very nature it is difficult for the afflicted to recognize it and attempt to make adjustments for their own well-being.  As such though, that means I should be more willing to give him a break, which I'll honestly try to do going forward... |
|
|
|
I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed. We just think that you're being hypocritical. Like I've said to you in the past and DooMAD is saying now, you've got to lead by example if you want others to follow. We're not the ones trying to re-invent the wheel here, you are. So if you want it re-invented, show us you are capable of making a new shape. Otherwise it just sounds like you are complaining about the same 'ol same 'ol: you think the wheel sucks, we get it. You have to manifest change in yourself instead of expecting the world to change around you. |
|
|
|
snip
You completely ignored his request for evidence that proactive scammer tagging without absolute proof is a net negative. Here's one example of a proactive tagging of a scam exchange that was not "objectively" a scam until today: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=902367We drove them off the forum months ago -- they left not because we are meanies, but because they are scammers. Feel free to find a counter-example of a negative feedback I left on an account that was undeserved. Don't just say, "but others do" -- I can't control what they do, and that's besides the point. The argument you are making is that tagging accounts with objective proof that they are scammers is inherently bad, and we are arguing otherwise. |
|
|
|
I read through those tweets just now. I wonder what the full amount of their exit-scam will be. Maybe it will run in to millions of USD$.
We tried for a long time to warn people about these Tradesatoshi scammers but sadly not everybody managed to withdraw their funds because of selective scamming and now of-course because of their exit-scam.
I know they were pretty small-time, with somewhere between 10 and 50 BTC worth of volume a day, depending on which numbers you believe. But they had a shitload of small customers, and as you can see by the reactions to the tweet I posted, 0.5 BTC is a lot of money for most of them. I would be pissed if I lost even just $100 there, but lucky for me they locked me out of my account with zero funds in it, quite a few months ago, LOL. I'd like to think we discouraged at least a few people from sending their coins there, and we certainly were responsible for getting them to leave the forum, so we did all that we could. |
|
|
|
TradeSatoshi exit scams. Tells users on their twitter they are closing down and should withdraw all funds ASAP, but disables withdrawals for most (if not all) coins. Then, about 24 hours, their exchange goes down for "maintenance," leaving hundreds of customers pissed off. Here's one of dozens of horror stories from twitter, a guy had over half a BTC on the exchange that he can't withdraw, as most withdrawal screens give this message:  Any customers able to withdraw their coins? If so, which ones? |
|
|
|
I never advertised my account for sale.
Most account sales are off-forum, perhaps it was elsewhere. You did. I am very sorry you made such a stupid mistake exposing your willingness to allow this forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars, and then furthermore run around punishing people for exactly what you yourself were guilty of, but that is not my responsibility.
Doubling down on the whole false equivalence thing, that was to be expected. You posted your account for sale, proving factually in your own words your intent to allow the forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars.
That's not what that proves, and it certainly doesn't prove my account was sold. It just occurred to me that this is all very off-topic, but whatever... You then tried to cover it up by editing the post, also demonstrating you know you did something you shouldn't have.
How can I cover it up when there is an archived version of that thread referenced in my feedback? I edited the post to make fun of revenge-seeking detectives like you. You have no way to prove your account wasn't sold,
You also have no way to prove your account wasn't sold. Prove that it wasn't. I dare you. and this is significant evidence to suggest it was regardless of your protestations and refractory counter demands.
Well it certainly is evidence that it was up for sale at one point, there's no getting around that fact. Oh wait I'm supposed to be trying to cover it up. Forgot about that. Whoops. This would have been more than enough evidence to destroy anyone on the DT shitlist, but you get a pass because you are a full time ball washer of everyone who would be excluding you. You are a walking talking living example of trust system nepotism and selective enforcement allowing abuse.
You should really work in a movie theater as projecting seems to be quite a well-developed skill of yours. |
|
|
|
Since the beginning of February we changed the logic a little bit so the "badges" now show the status as of the time of the event (i.e. you can see how the particular inclusion/exclusion affects the target user). It also "froze" old data so The Pharmacist's "badge" on that old record remains DT2 even though he's now DT1.
I have a plan to fix the historic data so that it makes more sense but that's a low priority, because that log is useful mostly in the current week before LoyceV's lists get updated.
Oh, OK, that makes sense, thanks. Now of course TS and perhaps others are going to say that I like it as is because it "favors" me, but I'd like to think it only does so because my use of the system remains within the general bounds of what is considered to be acceptable. It clearly does favor you. You were openly selling your account.  For all we know you aren't actually Nutilduhh, and you have no way to prove the trade never happened.
Okay, by that logic prove you never sold your account. Most account sales take place off forum so there's no record of it here. I heard it was sold. Prove it wasn't. If it were me or anyone else the clown car has on their shit list, this would be the worst atrocity ever committed. You have tagged people for exactly the same.
I tagged one full-time account seller, once. That was their business on the forum. They did nothing other than that.* People have been excluded from the DT for doing nothing more than what you did here.
There's a big difference between me and Bill Gator in that this isn't a bought account. You have no proof that it was sold ( objective standards, remember?), not that I agree that Bill Gator should have been tagged to shreds. Since you make a habit of being on your knees and washing the balls of the DT members, you get a pass. This system absolutely does favor you.
If I left a bunch of bullshit ratings, used my inclusions and exclusions to pad my trust or DT score, or included scammers in my trust list - thereby failing to demonstrate that I had an understanding of the DT system over a period of years - then I would absolutely be punished for it. You have no proof otherwise except for what you have imagined via your own projections. *apparently they were also a scammer, so my warning not to trust that user was absolutely prescient in that regard: Do not buy anything from him....He is a SCAMMER... He scammed me today for $100 on bitrated.com showing the false details.. I talked with the escrow agent name CollinCrypto...and he said me that he is a scammer and will trick you in deals..so beware of this fraud and do stay away from him.
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, is this the sort of thing that would show up on BPIP? Seems like it would.  No, because currently TECSHARE is not an active DT1 member so his inclusions/exclusions of non-DT1-members don't show up in real time. BPIP gets the near-real-time data from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt;fullBut it would show up in the weekly update tomorrow on LoyceV's site. One more boring question: why does it show up for his activity with The Pharmacist tho? |
|
|
|
It didn't work out for Quicksy. TECSHARE figured out his alt and removed it, allegedly.
Just out of curiosity, is this the sort of thing that would show up on BPIP? Seems like it would. |
|
|
|
is it possible to exclude yourself from your own trust list?
No, I just tried it. ~suchmoon disappeared after "Update" and nothing changed. No guild membership for me or Lauda I guess. I was genuinely curious about this... What is the logical outcome of excluding yourself in the trust system? Well, it would mean that your own judgment is not to be trusted, which means that you don't recognize your own exclusion, which is probably why it disappeared...? |
|
|
|
However poorly conceived, its a joke. An Alabama lawmaker fed up with her colleagues' attempts to outlaw abortion has filed legislation to require all men over 50 to get vasectomies.
Democratic Rep. Rolanda Hollis said Friday that she introduced the bill to send "the message that men should not be legislating what women do with their bodies." https://abc7news.com/5944620/It would be funny if it passed, however, I don't think that it will. |
|
|
|
|
Good catch. I left a warning message in the thread (which unfortunately bumps it to the top of the section, but oh well) and tagged the OP.
|
|
|
|
WARNING: SCAM ACCUSATIONPlagiarized white paper, copied almost word-for-word from a project called Pointpay. It is highly recommend to stay away from this project.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
