I can't make any of the higher tier flags, as no damages were caused thanks to BiPolarBob repaying his loan on his behalf. You're free to make newbie warning flag if you wish, I think it's justified given that he was selling his account, disappeared for a year after taking a loan and refused to sign a message. Done: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=433 please support the flag. |
|
|
|
Update from the Liquidators ! It would seem @Lafu has been pulling the wool over our collective eyes - for the past ten weeks Lafu has had me on his distrust list but if you look at that weeks' trust list for Lafu, http://loyce.club/trust/2019-03-23_Sat_05.36h/805820.html you will see s/he *already* had the OP of this thread TripleHeXXX on his distrust list! Even if you go back to the first week of @LoyceV 's trust list for Lafu on the 25th of January 2019 http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-25_Fri_22.33h/805820.html, Lafu *already* distrusted TripleHeXXX! But two days earlier, Lafu posted this about Cryptopia: [ Archive] You can edit your First post right now .
You are right with that , that i am a part of Cryptopia in form as an volunteer Moderator without any payments and also as Xrtraelv a Customer .
And I am not contracted.
I am not employed by cryptopia!
For this Cristmas day i just posted an update for the maintenance .
All i posted in this thread was and is done volunteer and posted from myself without any instructions from Cryptopia , i just asked if i can post the things with there approval !
Update :
Thanks for the edit !
What does that mean exactly? Well, it makes me wonder why Lafu is championing Cryptopia and the OP of this thread *but* all the while *distrusting* the OP that s/he has spent the last six months coming to the defence of.
@xtraelv since the 25th of January 2019 has trusted TripleHeXXX http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-25_Fri_22.33h/897509.html on or about the 15th of June 2019 xtraelv removed his/her trust of TripleHeXXX http://loyce.club/trust/2019-06-15_Sat_13.30h/897509.html *BUT* As of the 6th of July 2019 http://loyce.club/trust/2019-07-06_Sat_10.00h/897509.html has not gone that extra step and placed TripleHeXXX on their distrust list as Lafu did ten weeks ago.
xtraelv placed myself and Lavajumper on his distrust list on or about the 3rd of February 2019 http://loyce.club/trust/2019-02-03_Sun_00.08h/897509.html just five days after I warned xtraelv that his posts are off topic in a thread I created. xtraelv concocted as fanciful story to justify his "distrust" of both myself and Lavajumper, but the evidence is clear xtraelv slapped distrust on myself because I called out his off-topic posts. xtraelv defiantly still hasn't removed his off topic posts.
If you go back through xtraelv's weekly trust list working backwards from the most recent: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-07-06_Sat_10.00h/897509.html you will see most of xtraelv's "distrust" list are those who trust me. If you look just that little bit closer xtraelv seems to be using that DT1 distrust abuse as leverage to have those that trust me to remove their trust of me as evidenced by the lastest to remove their trust of me: Vadi2323 http://loyce.club/trust/2019-07-06_Sat_10.00h/399366.html this manipulation of the trust system is something that @theymos needs to have a close examination of. |
|
|
|
[quote author=koshgel link=topic=4309586.msg38648741#msg38648741 date=1527368625] I don't use this forum anymore. Legendary account for sale AS IS. You can do whatever you want with it. Best offer takes it. Escrow will be used for transaction. [/quote] My Red Paint ™ won't be removed  - once sold we have no way of knowing if you haven't just gone through the motions and will then use the account to scam and try to claim it was the new owner. @theymos should just "nuke" or black ban the UID (or what ever is done with accounts to render them unusable) if you no longer want to play.
Your (the OP's) feed back is retalitory - again against the wishes of @theymos  |
|
|
|
Payments can't be split automatically across multiple channels, yet. The only thing one can do is try sending a few smaller transactions but that might be too costly and take a lot of time.
On my test-net Eclair I have a few channels open with small amounts and a couple of bigger channel amounts. I hadn't realised payments (outbound) wouldn't be split.
My main-net Eclair has one inbound good for BTC 0.01 so I should be able to receive your (LoyceV's) L-Loan, but alas, nothing as yet.
I'm being cautious about how much BTC I'm willing to commit to the Lightning Network as it seems to be one way in, but no way out. Although the docs say it's good for traders, I'm figuring traders will want to cash out their acquired BTC and with channels being in or out traffic only, then they probably won't want to use it. In saying that it'll probably become a closed system once enough bitcoin is committed to it. Do you want to try sending me a request and I'll see if I can fill it from my end? |
|
|
|
Trying again (I have inbound this time) lnbc1pwj9h9wpp5g0rv83yfcjg5elzuejmdtxsefnlps6xzttj4gjgqkjhjkqy86yqsdqqxqr4rqrzjqwryaup9lh50kkranzgcdnn2fgvx390wgj5jd07rwr3vxeje0glc7z89q5qqssqqqqqqqqlgqqqqqeqqjq4whdkcv375dy5k4xr5ndpmer5ae9pyak7ssnuwtdl6ypawruttxycp6f6au8l54m3xma4gjtcmtu8vxqeep3sg8j44prk6awz4qx5mqp4y9km9 I figure you're trying to redistribute the incoming from just one node across many channels? |
|
|
|
Also are those accounts sending merit amongst each other?
If you go to https://bpip.org/ you'll be able to hunt out the answer to that question. |
|
|
|
If someone has enough time on their hands, I might have an interesting case here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5135934.0 This user seems to have multiple accounts which use the same " Subpar Thread Creation" way to get merits and rank the accounts. As you can see in my post, I connected him with an user using the same merit earning tactic having a similar username. OP of that thread never responded to me and locked the thread. I think this could be a big alt and merit sharing ring. I will investigate when I have enough time but just in case, dropping it here.
If I'm reading this correctly, the alts concerned are: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Name: tbct_mt2
Posts: 1096
Activity: 574
Merit: 319
Position: Sr. Member
Date Registered: 05 August 2017, 16:52:27
Last Active: 07 July 2019, 23:29:41 | Name: motienvolam
Posts: 292
Activity: 292
Merit: 20
Position: Member
Date Registered: 22 October 2017, 12:38:46
Last Active: 02 July 2019, 11:40:23 | Name: thd26bct
Posts: 301
Activity: 301
Merit: 93
Position: Member
Date Registered: 05 November 2017, 14:19:04
Last Active: 02 July 2019, 12:43:28 | Name: btcsmlcmnr
Posts: 316
Activity: 316
Merit: 138
Position: Full Member
Date Registered: 12 November 2017, 19:58:12
Last Active: 07 July 2019, 23:59:33 | Name: lobcmt2
Posts: 475
Activity: 420
Merit: 153
Position: Full Member
Date Registered: 17 November 2017, 18:54:22
Last Active: 02 July 2019, 00:46:01 |
IMadeYouReadThis talks about I think you are right, tbct_mt2 has same posting habits as all the people here: Yes, as per tbct_mt2's posting history and posting patterns, I think all of them are related. but doesn't give examples.
One sure fire way to check if a group are alts is to see when they were last online, or when they were last active. The above show similar last active times. (sorry the table spills off the page) |
|
|
|
...
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
...
PM me if you find bugs.
Eleven out of thirteen Flags ~ 85% of Lauda's Flags are inaccurate when you look right into it: Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [ Archive]
korner has created dozens of flags that link to locked threads with no proof offered.
Feel free to PM me if you'd like clarification. |
|
|
|
so the running tally is (six no reason/revenge and two user not mentioned) fake flags out of eight studied flags. [quote author=xolxol link=topic=5161689.msg51715521#msg51715521 date=1562318695] thats the old flag,these 3 flags are new and its clearly an abuse of the new system. [/quote] Moving right along... http://loyce.club/trust/flags/39.html40 Insufficient support. Lauda flagged Bitcoin SV (type 3, see why). Supported by Foxpup, Lauda, LFC_Bitcoin, [size=1] mosprognoz, Iamtutut, GeoRW, korner[/size]. Opposed by theymos, malevolent, chimk, [size=1] jbreher, Quickseller, peloso, MirkoIta, hv_, HardFireMiner, sirsplashalot, williamuk, actisstupidname, Bitcoin SV, breign[/size]. - In a thread started by nutildah although the it's obvious that the thread concerns the coin called Bitcoin SV, the actual user Bitcoin SV isn't mentioned. (might be splitting hairs I know, but the thread can be locked at any time thus null and voiding the Flag). The majority oppose the Flag including theymos. 47 Insufficient support. Lauda flagged bill gator (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda, TheUltraElite, [size=1] Timelord2067[/size]. Opposed by OgNasty, malevolent, redsn0w, The Pharmacist, eddie13, Steamtyme, [size=1] TECSHARE, Quickseller, Rmcdermott927, bill gator, teeGUMES, Thule, otrkid1970, actisstupidname, BharatDEX[/size]. - Lauda has voided his own flag by locking the thread but not withdrawing his support. [glow=orange,2,300]49 Active.[/glow][/b] [glow=#FFFFE0,2,300] Lauda flagged deeperx (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda, LFC_Bitcoin, Avirunes, TheUltraElite, Hhampuz, micgoossens, [size=1] mosprognoz, N0sferatu[/size]. Opposed by dragonvslinux[/size]. [/glow] - @Lutpin (not @Lauda) gives merit to the thread this Flag and the following flag cite. The thread goes for 117 pages, so there is clearly substance to it with crypto-rainbow (following Flag) being cited in the OP, however, in one of those TL;DR moments, I can't find the accused @deeperx mentioned in the first page of the thread. [glow=orange,2,300]50 Active.[/glow][/b] [glow=#FFFFE0,2,300] Lauda flagged crypto-rainbow (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda, LFC_Bitcoin, Avirunes, TheUltraElite, Hhampuz, micgoossens, DireWolfM14, [size=1] mosprognoz, N0sferatu[/size]. Opposed by dragonvslinux[/size]. [/glow] - the accused is the subject of the thread which has run for 117 pages. Lauda didn't start the thread, so there is always the risk the flag will be voided if the thread were locked. [glow=orange,2,300]51 Active.[/glow][/b] [glow=#FFFFE0,2,300] Lauda flagged PHI1618 (type 1, see why). Supported by [size=1] Lauda, mindrust, Vispilio, micgoossens[/size]. Opposed by mhanbostanci, [size=1] TECSHARE, Quickseller, 2run, Matthias9515, PHI1618, Dogan86, zfrey, huseyin15, gospodin, vipganyan[/size]. [/glow] - In this flag Lauda accuses two users, PHI1618 and BCT Staff member EFS, but only creates a flag on the soft target PHI1618. Although Lauda creates the flag, he does not respond to any of the multiple questions put to him (including the accused PHI1618 responding to justify what he had done) concerning the accusation in the thread that was started on the 12th of June 2019. [glow=red,2,300]52 Active.[/glow][/b] [glow=#FF9696,2,300] Lauda flagged MemoryDealers (type 3, see why). Supported by Foxpup, Lauda, LFC_Bitcoin, infofront, yogg, mindrust, Hhampuz, HairyMaclairy, micgoossens, [size=1] Hueristic, mosprognoz, GeoRW[/size]. Opposed by theymos, Stunna, malevolent, [size=1] jbreher, Quickseller, MirkoIta, iwantapony, actisstupidname[/size]. [/glow] - Lauda seems to falsely claim that he engaged in a contract with the accused (and is not the starter of the thread) - @theymos amongst others oppose the red flag. The OP @TheNewAnon135246 has not created *any* flag against the accused who had not been online for nearly three months prior to the thread being started. This seems to be the only one so far that has substance: [glow=orange,2,300]64 Active.[/glow][/b] [glow=#FFFFE0,2,300] Lauda flagged The-One-Above-All (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda, owlcatz, babo, LFC_Bitcoin, yogg, o_solo_miner, TMAN, Lafu, micgoossens, bitmover, ChiBitCTy, DireWolfM14, 1miau, [size=1] Timelord2067, IconFirm, mosprognoz, blurryeyed, cabalism13[/size]. Opposed by Quickseller, xolxol, The-One-Above-All, actisstupidname[/size]. [/glow] - even @theymos supports the Flag.
Our running totals for the 13 Flags that Lauda has created: Two Red flags which offer no proof - one of which he withdrew support. Seven no reason/revenge , three users not mentioned in the fake flags out of thirteen studied flags. Two actual accusations and one Lauda does not respond to questions with the majority of the flag's voters voting against.
Eleven out of thirteen Flags ~ 85% of Lauda's Flags are inaccurate when you look right into it. |
|
|
|
Sometimes I doubt that LoyceV is just one person!
...then one of the of the LoyceBots TM Mk V comes along and resets your chip. |
|
|
|
|
LoyceV helped me quite a while ago with some data for the known alts thread which I appreciate him doing.
He was also creating simple vanity wallets for others (without charge). I think he's too swamped under with other work to do any these days.
|
|
|
|
Not sure if it's been pointed out so far, but Hhampuz has withdrawn his support for the Flag he created against Quickseller: 56 Active. (Withdrawn!) Hhampuz flagged Quickseller (type 1, see why). Supported by Vod, Foxpup, Lauda, minifrij, babo, yahoo62278, chronicsky, LFC_Bitcoin, redsn0w, The Pharmacist, yogg, Lesbian Cow, mindrust, nutildah, marlboroza, TheUltraElite, bob123, Timelord2067, IconFirm. Opposed by TECSHARE, BayAreaCoins, Quickseller, iwantapony, lighpulsar07_alt[/size].
After the grief I received from @marlboroza when I said I wasn't going to give that person distrust, I think I'll respect Hhampuz's request for distrust. If/when they lock this thread and rescind the request, then I'll gladly remove the distrust. In the meantime... |
|
|
|
This is unsurprising. I don’t doubt that forcing consensus for trust ratings (flags) will lead to lauda being discredited.
If lauda was just making baseless flags that would be one thing, but they are clearly actively ignoring the pre-requisites for even creating the flag as laid out by the administration. Essentially lauda wants to make their own rules and refuses to operate within the community. It really depends on how you define discredited, but I would say that qualifies. Thanks for your support - just a reminder that although this isn't a moderated thread I ask that now most of you have had your laugh that you please keep the posts civil.
Example eight, we go back to Flag 103:103 Active. Lauda flagged sgbett (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda, LFC_Bitcoin, Hhampuz, micgoossens, sgbett, GeoRW. Opposed by jbreher, MirkoIta[/size]. sgbett starts a thread Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper and has been slapped with a Flag by Lauda for his troubles. This is the OP:
Just for clarity, there are no flag creations by Lauda between Flag 103 and 284, so the running tally is (six no reason/revenge and two user not mentioned) fake flags out of eight studied flags. |
|
|
|
Continuing to count backwards 286 Active. Lauda flagged Thorecoin (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by nobody. - Other than Lauda's one line (shit post?) Red Trust and flag of The OP Thorecoin (who has absolutely no other Trust Wall, good, bad, or indifferent). Lauda does not provide a reason why he believes Thorecoin requires a flag. Horrible and utter scam coin. Tagged and flagged.
285 Active. Lauda flagged Pete550 (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by nobody. - Pete550 has a 79 page thread - Lauda's post #1,570 quotes a source then makes this threat: 284 Active. Lauda flagged Dogedarkdev (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by nobody. - While the thread Lauda cites discusses a potential scam, Dogedarkdev (the subject of the flag) is not mentioned even once in the thread, or the Reddit thread that is cited in the OP.
So far out of six Flags created by Lauda, four gives no reasons or are revenge flags while the remaining two flags the subject of the flag isn't even mentioned.
This is unsurprising. I don’t doubt that forcing consensus for trust ratings (flags) will lead to lauda being discredited.
I've only just spotted this: 35 Insufficient support. <U>(Withdrawn!)</U> Lauda flagged Quickseller (type 3, see why). Supported by mosprognoz. Opposed by theymos, malevolent, qwk, redsn0w, Pamoldar, crwth, chimk, DdmrDdmr, TECSHARE, Quickseller, peloso, actisstupidname, BharatDEX, rakasss. Lauda alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages Which as with the previous identified Flags created by Lauda is a thread that wasn't even started by him. Quickseller vs cleaning up the forum - one of those tedious threads, but clearly @Lauda did not enter a contract with @Quickseller - so I have opposed the flag. (That makes seven Fake Flags from seven Flags looked at)
A glitch in the matrix,
it sure must be,
now ~Lauda and fuck off.
Likewise, I am sure. (did it months ago)  Your Tiara is slipping Lauda. |
|
|
|
I believe that Lauda is engaging in Flag Abuse. What's @theymos' policy concerning Flag abuse? Is there a thread to report such things occurring?
I forgot I was a shit-eater and forgot all about xolxol and forgot all about this thread. The xolxol account is obviously a throwaway troll account and is most likely somebody's alt being used for the purpose of slinging crap against DT members. Even if a flag was warranted, I'm not sure I'd even bother with it now. As far as Lauda's claim that you'd be in danger of losing funds to this troll....that may be true, but I don't think there's hard evidence of that. I sure as hell wouldn't do any deals with him (and I'm sure that's mutual), but aside from the slanderous BS I have no reason to suspect he's a thief. Have now found the last three Flags created by Lauda don't seem to meet the criteria that the thread is about the person being flagged. Am going to have to have a look at the other flags Lauda's created. |
|
|
|
Reserved #1 Comment:Flag 712: @bobitza , @ChuckBuck , @Enre , @JollyGood , @RBF , @rhomelmabini , @robelneo , @sabotag3x , @ScamViruS are supporting a fake flag created by Lauda: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.msg53951875#msg53951875Flag 1260: @AlexSimion , @joksim299 , @nullius , @TheUltraElite , @TMAN , are supporting a fake flag created by Lauda: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.msg53951875#msg53951875 |
|
|
|
So far I've come across three flags Lauda has created whereby the thread is not the subject of the flag or the UID isn't even mentioned in the thread. http://loyce.club/trust/flags/35.html304 Active. Lauda flagged xolxol (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by nobody. - Lauda appears to have engaged in Trust (Flag) abuse after xolxol posted this in their thread. 294 Active. Lauda flagged proudhon (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by nobody. - proudhon makes one post which is replied to by another poste of the thread in a civil manor. (If the thread is so bad, how come the OP wasn't flagged??) 288 Active. Lauda flagged Khaos77 (type 1, see why). Supported by Lauda. Opposed by Khaos77[/size]. - Khaos77 doesn't even post in the thread and is not mentioned.
I don't have time tonight to review more of Lauda's Flags, but to me it seems he is using the Flag system to punish others. What's @theymos' position on the creation of Flags? |
|
|
|
This thread is being used by Lauda to promote their flag against xolxol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=304 (the thread) was neither started by Lauda, nor is the subject of the thread concerning xolxol. I believe that Lauda is engaging in Flag Abuse. What's @theymos' policy concerning Flag abuse? Is there a thread to report such things occurring? No one seems to be monitoring the creation of flags. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
