Yup, as a follow up, I posted here the list of people who trust the most (I got the same results as you, so that's nice) AND the people who distrust the most (those who have the most exclude links).

Since you already listed the top 25 who trust the most, here are the top 25 people who distrust the most:

Not based of the picture, but based off the text file, this is pretty easy:


^^ so that algorithm gives you a +1 for ever addition, a -1 for every exclusion.  Pass the trust file in on stdin:

Top 50:

Bottom 50:

I pasted the entire output here: https://paste.debian.net/311720/

Cheers!

This is an alt account QS created in order to sell a DT account (he revealed it's identity because he couldn't resist doing a little sockpuppetry/trolling of me while using it).  If you look at the post history of this account (assuming QS doesn't immediately delete posts), it suggests that the DT account was sold.  I can't speak to what account it was or whether it remained on the DT list.  I'm guessing QS isn't going to tell but who knows, maybe someone else will.

This post is pretty entertaining because you can see QS doing his now signature move of discussing something with himself using multiple accounts.

Got it.  I guess I overlooked it.  Seeing this, I now recall the discussion about whether the escrow or the OP should pay the participants.  Thanks!

People who have other things to accuse QS of are free to open new accusation threads.  I locked that thread because for several pages the discussion there wasn't about whether QS was doing self-escrow, it had become about whether self-escrow was okay, and/or general trolling and threats.  As there's clearly a concurrent thread which specifically has a topic of whether self-escrow is okay, and as the same people are participating in both threads essentially having the same conversation in two places, what's the point in having two threads?

Locking that thread isn't doing anything to help or to hurt QS' reputation, it's merely a reasonable way to help organize the discussion and to try to keep the discussion of some topic X in the thread about topic X.

I locked the thread for that reason, next thing you know I'm going to be an alt of quickseller too!  

Sounds good to me.  Quickseller has admitted to the accusation presented in the OP, although he still disputes whether it was OK for him to do this.  Arguments at this point aren't about whether QS has done this, they've moved over to whether this practice is okay.  People who want to continue the discussion of whether self-escrow with a secret alt is okay can continue over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174622.0

I tend to agree.  I would think that because QS has admitted to the self-escrow and other threads have been opened to discuss the broader ramifications: (Is self-escrow with a secret alt OK?, etc), that it would be okay to lock it now so that there aren't so many threads fracturing what is practically the same topic.  However, I'm going to leave it open for the moment for two reasons:

1) I've been criticized in the past (by Quickseller) for locking threads, he's called it censorship.
2) Quickseller is still posting in it to defend himself (despite his claims that he was going to "take a long break").

Essentially, it doesn't seem right to take away QS' opportunity to respond to criticism if he wishes to continue to respond.  If he agrees that the thread is basically done, I'll go ahead and lock it.  Quickseller, let me know what you want here.



 

Thanks for the link.  Bookmarked to look at the details later.  I have terrible hardware, but it's good to know what packages are worth using because I can get access to better computers when I need them.  Cheers!

What's up with the "yes/no" answer to the escrow question in the OP?  I'm sure it's explained somewhere in the 188 pages of this thread but I wasn't sure how to extract that information easily.

Thanks!

Cool!

I'm curious what software you're using to draw these thingies (they look great, btw).  I only really know how to do some very unsophistcated things using PS-tricks (post-script, I use it .tex documents from time to time) and graphviz.  I'd love to know more.

Some SPV wallets allow you to connect to a trusted peer, which can be a full node (Andreas' Bitcoin Wallet for Android, eg)
For core, can't you already do this in the conf file?SPV wallets only download a subset of transactions, so there's some information there about which transactions you downloaded and which ones you didn't which is revealed if you're using an SPV node to connect directly to an untrusted peer.

I think you're only kinda right on this, ajareselde.  One thing this incident has highlighted for a lot of people is the extreme volitility and duplicity of QS.  He's okay with deception, as long as it's the kind of deception he can rationalize.  He's okay with using sockpuppets and half-reasoned intutions to ruin other people's reputation, but when he feels like someone is falsely accusing him, he flies completely off the handle.  If all QS had been doing was some small-potatoes escrow scamming for the fee, then sure, we've certainly seen bigger crimes.  But this is a guy who was "highly respected".  Even now, you say that he did a lot of good "catching scammers".  I know that once I was falsely accused, I saw that QS' ratings tended to fall into two categories:

1) cheap, easy neg-reps on complete newbie accounts who didn't seem to have taken the time to read the rules
2) he butts into a disputed trade and decides precipitously for one party or the other, considers his judgment infallible, calls troll/scammer on anyone who protests, and then moves on

In my opinion, someone with such a volitile personality is a dangerous person to put into a position of power, and now that this incident has highlighted his MO for the wider community, I think it'd be a good idea for someone with a more impartial approach to look again at some of the more controversial QS ratings.  Note, crucially, he has yet to accept the value of an impartial opinion.  For him, there is only right or wrong, and he considers himself very good at finding the right.  He can't seem to imagine that there are very often in life two or more "rights" and that it takes a very careful, self-aware person to weigh these kinds of things.

It's not clear at all to me that he has "learned his lesson", as you said.

Maybe people will believe you moar if you bring in an alt to say it---just an idea. 

I guess we can agree that I'm really stupid because I don't understand at all.  When you were talking to yourself in a thread posting back and forth under at least two accounts, that means you were not trying to make it appear that multiple people had the same opinion?

I know I must be missing something but it seems like the crux of this issue you are having is about how you've been using many accounts to make it appear that you are more people than you are.  Or wait, maybe you ARE many people?  Is Quickseller a collective?

Oh, I think I know what you mean, I saw this poll where it seems that the same person posted at least 9 of the 14 posts in the thread. Did you end up voting in that one, QS/panthers52?

What's a copius score?  I tried google, found this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=copius

Help me out here?

It seems like there's a lot of half-informed discussion on this thread.   SHA256 isn't the signature algorithm. 

This thread was supposed to be about ECDSA, and as far as I know, a good QC weakens ECC in a way that it doesn't do to RSA.  Shorena's first post in here correctly points out that public keys aren't directly revealed in a transaction which spends to an address (just the hash of them is), so there's some security there for addresses which haven't been reused.

I guess I'm still wondering about how the UTXO set would be protected in the case where a QC which could break ECC was developed.  Clearly some sort of hard-fork, but what would it look like?  How could you get all of the bitcoin owners to take notice and do X to protect their transactions?  It seems like people with paper wallets and cold-storage might have to take action.  How could they be notified?  Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I'd like to hear discussion on that topic because it's definitely not obvious to me what to do.

I think that all the talk of SHA256 and mining and asics is missing the point of this thread.

Is this what it looks like when you "go on a long break"?

Indeed, the message as presented when you click the "quote" button, where the BTC symbol appears as [btc] fails to verify.  So does using a "B" which is what my browser produced when I copy-n-pasted the BTC image from the web-page.  The use of < > around sections of the message seems to indicate lack of familiarity with signing bitcoin messages.

@OP, see if you can get us a working signature.  Check out this wonderful tutorial on the matter by Shorena: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990345.0

It's been my unfortunate reality that I've had to experience this very closely over the past 5 or 6 months.  I think you can see this again and again if you look at how his reasoning works and his behavior.  Even now, he seems to think that the only way I could have discovered his alt is through some secret tip from an unknown newbie account---I have no idea how he's convinced himself of this.  I find it very strange how little he seems to be able to put himself into anyone else's shoes.  Why didn't he realize how obvious it would be to bring in a sockpuppet account into a thread and repeat the exact same things as the Quickseler account?  You'll note that he continues to suggest that nothing was wrong with his escrow scam because in the "<1% of the cases" where there was a dispute he just "handled it fairly".  He seems unable to comprehend that it's impossible to claim that you're being fair if you're both the judge and the appelant.  

I think he's also making it apparant just how unstable he is.  He goes from chest-thumping (I have other accounts on DT, I will have you removed if you cross me; I'll sue you for libel), to distractions (but tsp is not cool; Vod is an horse's arse), to these incomprehensible justifications (I did nothing wrong, I will never do anything wrong), and then repeats.  These are the same strategies he used in his "argumentation" against me why I asked him to justify his abusive behavior.  The only difference is that he seems to have finally stopped pulling in the sockpuppets (ostensibly).  Obviously these kinds of behaviors are disturbing, and I certainly think that the community here is better off for having seen them first hand, but I actually think there's a bigger lesson to be learned here.

QS made a meal-and-a-half out of quick neg-reps, snap-decisions, and never looking back.  He did this to my account.  I definitely saw him do this to at least a couple of other people.  In each case, because QS was respected, people either wouldn't our couldn't cross him.  He'd follow up with posts about how he's doing a great job and that's why he's right, and in the echo-chamber of an internet forum, it because a kind of self-fulfiling prophecy.  QS' reputation continued to be built on the backs of the accounts he neg-repped.  I know that after I had seen him extrapolate wildly about my own case into a kind of stupor about what he "knows without taking any word from TF", I started to look twice at those untrusted negative feedbacks in his trust page: people that pointed out that he was abusing them, people who called him out for over-obsessing about blockchain "evidence" which could be explained otherwise, people who said he didn't know anything about the situation but had somehow appointed himself judge and left neg reptuation on one or the other party.  Quickseller's inability to put himself into other people's shoes makes him a particularly poor judge, but the real question to me is why so many people blithely followed his self-aggrandizing manouvers.  Why was it the case that you had to actually get falsely neg-repped by Quickseller in order to take a close look at his way of being?

1) I think the lesson to be learned here is twofold: when a reasonable explanation exists for some behavior, people should be given the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think this guilty-until-proven-innocent M.O of QS and alts is helpful.  I think it creates a stifling culture of fear.

2) I think people need to take a close look at mob-mentalities and to check into facts for themselves.  So many people around here traffic in reputations, but reputations are merely histories.  Each new case has facts, and facts can be examined and each person needs to do this for themself, not to rely on the pronouncments from the mighty Quickseller or the Almighty dooglus, or the Great Vod, or the God Theymos or any other such figure.

I also have argued in the past for more decentralization of the trust network, I think it would do a great deal to alleviate the kinds of reputation trafficking abuses that we see Quickseller epitomizing.  I think talking about that too much here would afield of the main topic.  But I hope that people will think a bit about what the Quickseller lesson teaches us about what kind of culture we should seek to establish on this forum.  And what kind of culture leads to toxic schemes and nastiness.

Just my 2 (or 3) satoshis.

--TSP