https://archive.fo/WeJk2
xtraelv
You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.
You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.
Since my name is on your list I'd like to see the evidence implicating where I have done that. (Invoking the local rule) As a standard I will compare it to how you have spent your merits. 
Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.
You will also notice these person withhold merit from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.
I disagree with this statement. I have given merit to numerous people I dislike or have argued with previously when I feel their post is worthy of it. I am not a merit source so the smerits are for me to spend as I see just. I also don't always have smerits available to give. Sometimes people can give very valuable contributions - even though I may not be aligned with their opinions. Examples of people I have had disputes with or that dislike me that received merit from me: (Not a complete list) February 04, 2019, 09:34:15 PM: 1 to Quickseller for Re: Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag. February 04, 2019, 06:26:33 AM: 1 to TECSHARE for Re: The most iconic bitcointalk threads. History on Bitcointalk. January 30, 2019, 02:01:01 AM: 1 to mdayonliner for My philosophy to entrust and ~distrust members October 15, 2018, 01:41:52 PM: 1 to S_Therapist for Re: Wall of fame / shame. Shit posts so bad that they are actually funny There are also numerous people that I do not particularly like or have had no previous conversations with that received merit. Merit is given purely for the quality of the post. I think I deserve an apology for the accusation.
Their connection/collusion/political allegiance is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.
My exclusions list is purely based on people who I don't trust , have a manner which I believe to be incompatible to be on DT1 or whose trust feedback I disagree with (e.g. have people listed as trusted or red tagged). People on my trust list are those whose [opinions) feedback ratings I (generally) want to see. I disagree with the bickering and you will notice that the majority of people on my trustlist are people who contribute positively on the forum and have moderate views. The people that are more vocal I believe to have a positive contribution to the forum. A lot of people I agree with and disagree with also don't appear on my list because they may be involved in disputes where I am not prepared to take sides on. The reason you are excluded on my list is not because I have an extreme dislike. I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values. Your own trust and exclusion list looks very political:  
|
|
|
|
Thank you for information. I know what you're talking about, but there are several points:
- Links must go to the source of information, where the author's information was posted.
- It is not allowed to distort, edit the integrity of information, without the consent of the author, especially with the aim of humiliating, causing moral damage, etc.
This is similar to how I will take someone's author's song, vozmu change words, where I will insult the author of the song and will spread on the Internet - by making a link to it on some of the servers on the Internet.
Therefore, users who distribute my photos without my knowledge have such status as thieves. They stole it and now use it in their messages, edit it, etc.
The links do go to the source of the information. You cannot load images to the bitcointalk server. While an image displays as:  It is on the site from an external link (framing) [img]https://media.wired.com/photos/59331aa458b0d64bb35d4543/master/w_576,c_limit/copyright-troll.jpg[/img]
It was sourced from here: https://www.wired.com/2012/03/troll-forfeits-copyrights/The issues is DOXing. The photos should be in the investigations section.In my opinion there is no copyright on those photos used for "fair use". It is non commercial use of the photos for reporting purposes and parody. The photos also don't appear to have commercial value. The factors considered are: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_useNon registered works are also difficult to prove "breach of copyright". https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.htmlChances are that you also signed some of your rights away when posting it on social media. (Their terms and conditions). |
|
|
|
Technically photos are not in breach of copyright on bitcointalk. The images are hosted on an external server not in control of this website. If there is a breach of copyright it is with the image host and the person who posted it. Bitcointalk only links to the image. In most jurisdictions linking to an image does not result in breach of copyright.
He is actually right, it doesn't matter if it's hosted on an external site or not, if you are the owner of the forum you can be sued for copyright infringement if someone posts a copyrighted picture. Of course it matters a lot where the server is located.
Not if the link is to an origional post. It is like posting a URL.The presence of the image is only virtual. The image file is not on the bitcointalk server - only a link to the image. Removal of the image from the linked site will result in the url displaying 
Such site can also block external access to the image.In the country where I live it is not considered infringement. It is also not disallowed by the bitcointalk rules. ...and that is not even getting into the "fair use" argument or the fact that most, if not all of the images that were linked to are in public domain with no distinguishable ownership. A lot of the memes are generated on meme makers using royalty free stock photos. Crazy countries can make crazy laws. But since I don't live in them or plan to visit they have no jurisdiction over me. If those countries attempt to enforce those crazy laws outside of their own country it may well be breaching the constitutional laws of the country that I live in. In the majority of civilized countries - linking and framing is not considered copyright infringement.In large part, linking and framing are not held to be copyright infringement under US and German copyright law, even though the underlying Web pages are protected under copyright law. Because the copyright-protected content is stored on a server other than that of the linking or framing person (it is stored on the plaintiff's server), there is typically no infringing "copy" made by the defendant linking or framing person (as may be essential), on which to base liability. Some European countries take a more protective view, however, and hold unauthorized framing and so-called deep linking unlawful.
The European Court of Justice's binding ruling in 2014 was that embedding a work could not be a violation of copyright:
The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framingAs long as Bitcointalk follows the DCMA guidelines they have nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Somebody might explain to me why old members who have clearly participated a lot in the forum in the past are not allowed to have any voting rights if they didn't earn 10 merits ?
I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.
You should have made the list before merit had a political function. Merit sources were asking for merit worthy posts in meta for months. |
|
|
|
 https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-continue-make-progress-cryptocurrency-investigationPolice continue to make progress in cryptocurrency investigation
Thursday, 7 February 2019 - 3:22pm
Canterbury
Please attribute to Detective Inspector Greg Murton:
The Police investigation into the Cryptopia hack and theft of cryptocurrency is progressing well and advancing on several fronts.
The focus is on identifying those behind this offending and retrieving the stolen cryptocurrency.
This is a complex investigation involving the theft of cryptocurrency in an unregulated environment.
The stolen cryptocurrency is being actively tracked by Police and specialists worldwide due to the nature of the cryptocurrency blockchains being publicly available.
Excellent progress is being made in the investigation and we are working with Cryptopia management plus current and former employees who have been providing valuable assistance.
We are working closely with our international partners and cybercrime experts to continue the investigation.
Cryptopia’s managers are on site at their Christchurch address and Police are expected to finish at the premises by the end of next week (Friday 15 February).
This investigation is expected to take a considerable amount of time to resolve due to the complexity of the cyber environment. |
|
|
|
|
I agree that ICOEthics is a huge asset to this forum. Just the sheer number of reliable scam identifications and relentless tagging without getting into forum politics is the type of values needed on DT1.
The tools listed on the website for investigating scams are also very useful.
|
|
|
|
Yup, and you have put me on your negative DT trust list ( Archive) because I first asked, then banned you from posting in my Cryptopia online article list when you and and another user decided it would be ok to have an off topic arguement that was not relevant to the thread. I disagree that it was off topic. You discussed the topic in your first post. You also didn't first ask (show me where you first asked) and then "banned me" (not that you have that authority) because you disagreed with my personal opinion. (You had the last response which according to you is off-topic). Also local rules don't apply to that thread because you did not follow the protocol for local rules to apply and it was not a self moderated thread. I stopped posting there because I did not want conflict. Nope. It talks about trust rating - not trust list.Two completely different things. Trust rating is where you place feedback. Trust list is where you trust someone, don't have them listed or distrust someone. In terms of trading I have no issue with you . The trust list determines which trust feedback is visible to me - My opinion is that you make lots of assumptions with your "investigations" that are inaccurate and that I disagree with the feedback that you leave. Which would be visible to me if I did not exclude you. Trust rating criteria:  Trust list criteria:  |
|
|
|
I think this is relevant: I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. |
|
|
|
I just want to post something Loyce_V and CryptopreneurBrainboss posted in another thread. I think it is very relevant to the discussion about community values. Let me quote this for attention: All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes. As I said in the OP, this thread will be updated regularly as new suggestion are been made and here's a reply from theymos that could serve as a possible guidelines towards leaving trust feedbacks on other users account. You should consider reading other response and his replies after this quoted reply (on thread). Update from theymos I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. |
|
|
|
Archived for future reference: http://archive.fo/U2t1E#selection-7247.0-7323.137Funny how only a couple of days ago xtraelv was debunking stuff.co.nz
Stuff has reported numerous things that are plain stupid.
Most custodial exchanges hold users’ assets in cold wallets, which cannot be easily accessed. Smaller sites, like Cryptopia, may not be able to afford the same protection, making them targets for hackers.
Since when are cold wallets expensive ?Police have now stormed the office of a Christchurch cryptocurrency trader after millions of dollars worth of currency appears to have disappeared in a security breach.
Apparently Police storms buildings when you call them."Some of the exchanges in New Zealand deliberately won't hold cryptocurrencies on behalf of people because they just become a target for hackers." Show me a peer to peer centralized exchange that doesn't hold cryptocurrency on behalf of people.Their main expert they keep quoting Associate Professor Alex Sims is a associate professor of law. Some of her reported assertions about crypto technology have not been accurate or out of context.Either she does not have the technical insight, Stuff has been reporting her comments incorrectly or quoted the comments out of context..[/s] Your quotes imply I said them... I did not. If you are quoting someone else, please add the website to your post. Your questions appear to be directed at someone else - perhaps you should direct your anger at that person, not me. By removing the formatting you are misquoting me. Your archive shows the formatting. It is clear that stuff.co.nz said those things and not you. My response is directed at the website that you are quoting and the expert they are quoting. There is no anger involved. Just frustration because I'm keen to understand the facts rather than reading fiction. Stuff.co.nz (as they often do) have removed some of the quotes from their news articles (so it is pointless linking t them) since but third party sites are still quoting them.  |
|
|
|
taikuri13
WhiteManWhite
What are these people doing in DT1? Looks like the ruskis have succesfully colluded their way into DT1.  I have been working with Taikuri13 for quite some time. If you look at some of his posts and my posts you will see that he has done translations for me regarding some of the historic topics and scam warnings. He has helped me a lot behind the scenes and is a highly merited user on the Russian forum. I don't see any collusion there. |
|
|
|
Not all police communication is via their website. When an article quotes a specific police officer it is safe to assume that they said it - otherwise it could be considered defamatory or false publication. Detective Inspector Greg Murton, of Canterbury police, said it was "not correct" that more currency had been transferred without authorisation. Funny how only a couple of days ago xtraelv was debunking stuff.co.nz
Stuff has reported numerous things that are plain stupid.Most custodial exchanges hold users’ assets in cold wallets, which cannot be easily accessed. Smaller sites, like Cryptopia, may not be able to afford the same protection, making them targets for hackers. Since when are cold wallets expensive ? 1Police have now stormed the office of a Christchurch cryptocurrency trader after millions of dollars worth of currency appears to have disappeared in a security breach. Apparently Police storms buildings when you call them. 2"Some of the exchanges in New Zealand deliberately won't hold cryptocurrencies on behalf of people because they just become a target for hackers." Show me a peer to peer centralized exchange that doesn't hold cryptocurrency on behalf of people. 3Their main expert they keep quoting Associate Professor Alex Sims is a associate professor of law. Some of her reported assertions about crypto technology have not been accurate or out of context. Either she does not have the technical insight, Stuff has been reporting her comments incorrectly or quoted the comments out of context.. Now he's relying on their same website to back up his assertion.
They quoted Detective Inspector Greg Murton, of Canterbury police. Who is known to be in charge of operation crypto. My personal opinion is that Stuff has been on a fishing expedition. Because they don't have a clue they make false assertions in the hope that they get a response from someone who corrects them. |
|
|
|
Re timelord -- I have not really come across this person timelord (probably not an alt board poster) all that much in the past ( to my memory), but if he has accused thule of being QS and red trust him with no evidence to support that then that is simply trust abuse in my opinion and should be reduced to neutral (max) as a suspicion only which is all it is as far as I know.
I have no doubt that both QS has alts and Thule has alts. But Thule and QS have very different writing styles.  I am certain that Thule is not Quickseller. Quickseller has quite an eloquent grasp of the English language. Thule speaks English as a second language and has quite a distinctive writing style.
If Kavanaugh is tried, he would likely be tried as a minor, who sits on the Supreme Court (or the DC circuit court of appeals). Although there may be a scenario in which it is unclear that the juvenile court has jurisdiction if it can’t be proven he was a minor at the time, and the “adult” court may not have jurisdiction if it cannot be proven he was over 18.
I'm not going to keep argueing with people who have clearly no knowledge at all about law which they already proofed several times in the past.
Just a sample of many regular errors made by Thule that are not made by QS. Thule asked Cryptohunter if he could use the same signature. It was in one of the threads I read. |
|
|
|
No, they've not returned. They actually deleted Cryptopia's copy of Ethereum private key after copying it for themselves on the day of hack. It's not like that Cryptopia has been hacked again! The police has already refuted that claim. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110287959/police-dispute-claims-more-cryptocurrency-taken-from-christchurch-company-cryptopiaPolice dispute claims more cryptocurrency taken from Christchurch company CryptopiaBlockchain analysis company Elementus' CEO Max Galka has written a blog post claiming another $260,000 worth of Ethereum (a type of cryptocurrency) has been transferred from about 17,000 Cryptopia wallets (like a bank account for digital currency) since police began investigating. The transfers allegedly began about 1am on Tuesday. Detective Inspector Greg Murton, of Canterbury police, said it was "not correct" that more currency had been transferred without authorisation.
I think that @Lafu might work there, maybe he can let us know more about the situation.
Lafu doesn't work there. He is a volunteer chat moderator on their trollbox. Their staff is currently on leave while the police is investigating. There is very little confirmed information about what has happened. Everyone is calling it a hack but the statement says "security breach". That could describe a lot of different scenarios that do not involve hacking. So far the only reliable source of information has been here: http://www.police.govt.nz/news/search-results/CryptopiaUntil there is a detailed official statement from the police it is hard to tell the facts from fiction. |
|
|
|
Re timelord -- I have not really come across this person timelord (probably not an alt board poster) all that much in the past ( to my memory), but if he has accused thule of being QS and red trust him with no evidence to support that then that is simply trust abuse in my opinion and should be reduced to neutral (max) as a suspicion only which is all it is as far as I know.
I have no doubt that both QS has alts and Thule has alts. But Thule and QS have very different writing styles. |
|
|
|
It is tough being labelled a Dalek by a Timelord.I see they have already conspired to move the thread from meta to reputation to prevent time from being subverted. |
|
|
|
I don't think it's a scam, but our funds are lost. Funds have continued to leak off cryptopia's wallets because they have probably lost the private keys and only the hackers (or better the thieves) can manage those wallets, ironically.
The police has already refuted that claim. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110287959/police-dispute-claims-more-cryptocurrency-taken-from-christchurch-company-cryptopiaPolice dispute claims more cryptocurrency taken from Christchurch company CryptopiaBlockchain analysis company Elementus' CEO Max Galka has written a blog post claiming another $260,000 worth of Ethereum (a type of cryptocurrency) has been transferred from about 17,000 Cryptopia wallets (like a bank account for digital currency) since police began investigating. The transfers allegedly began about 1am on Tuesday. Detective Inspector Greg Murton, of Canterbury police, said it was "not correct" that more currency had been transferred without authorisation. |
|
|
|
Making an infographic like this makes it look official, which it's not. If I'm not mistaken, we're still having a discussion about what's acceptable and what's not as far as leaving trust, and I disagree with a couple of the ones on this, like not giving negs for certain rule violations like harassment. Plus the "unless on rare occasions" qualifier sort of makes that suggestion near meaningless. I also don't agree that negs should be left for merit issues unless it's particularly egregious and even then it's a judgement call I don't think Theymos approves of.
All in all, this is premature. You probably want to help and likely are looking for merits, but an infographic of this stuff isn't needed right now. Just my opinion.
I agree with The Pharmacist that the discussion is still ongoing about what is acceptable and what is not. However it is good that others like yourself are taking an interest in this discussion and bringing the community together to create some agreement about trust. With this it is important to listen to all sides of the debate. People that have different opinions often have some very valid contributions. I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?
You should be able to explain why this is true: Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. Mdayonliner also has a good discussion thread about this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
