Ok... so if I were to liaise with any member from btctalk who had offered information here regarding my find,.. would you be the most trustworthy and be able to resolve this in the most morally appropriate manner? If not.. who? I am happy to offer up any finders fee the actual owner proposes.. if any? Would other members agree that you were the most trustworthy? Genuine question.. if plan a falls through.. who do you all recommend here is most trustworthy? Is it based on merit points? I think you misunderstood o_e_l_e_o: you don't have to (and shouldn't!) trust anyone. There's no need to share the private key (really, don't do that!), but you can post the address here. Make sure you don't confuse the address with the private key though. Other than that, I don't think anyone here can help you to find the owner. It's up to the owner to find you, so after posting it basically relies on search engines. |
|
|
|
What I see is that that list includes people who have asked theymos to be excluded from DT1. Correct, I don't exclude those. |
|
|
|
(2) It requires more brainstorming. i.e. To be DT1 you must be in other DT1's (99) trust list either as added or as tilded (avoid not having them at all in your trust list). I can not think of how because every time Theymos run the corn job it add and remove new members but as I said with proper brainstorming it can be improved. As far as I know, one of the reasons the DT1-requirements don't go up now that more and more users qualify, is to make it less "grandfathered" by giving newer users a chance to reach it too. I can think of one way to improve the current system without involving theymos: check my DT1-election ranking, and scroll down to users who almost qualify. See if they have good trust ratings and good trust lists, and add them to your Trust list. |
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, it's just that Cloudflare changed the design of their anti-DDOS challenge page. Confirmed: open any "All" thread in a private window, and scroll down:  |
|
|
|
Considering what dkbit98 said about mass dropouts from DT is a good idea to create a new kind of drama. It's worse than that: if the people who use the Trust system correctly drop out, that leaves the ones who shouldn't be on DT1. Maybe that does indeed force theymos to make changes, but it's probably better to suggest how to improve it directly. Less DT1-members isn't going to change much, and requiring more inclusions for DT2 hasn't been implemented for years. So like any democracy, as bad as it is, it's the best we can get. |
|
|
|
Correct. And this also confirmed by your post from the topic DefaultTrust changes. Correct. Maybe I am not looking at the right data? You're looking at incomplete data: those 2 lists don't account for his DT-strength, which can be seen from Default trust breakdown: (-12). That means he has 12 more exclusions than inclusions, which effectively means he's not no DT1. Besides that, even if he was not in DT1, at that moment he was in DT2, thus he was still able to influence the Trust score... He'll (almost certainly) have more DT1 exclusions than inclusions when he's on DT2, so his feedback won't show up by default. Unless you add him to your own Trust list, that overrules DefaultTrust. |
|
|
|
I'm taking this post here (so I don't continue off-topic): I've discussed some of JollyGood's negative tags a few times (probably in Reputation), but gave up after it seemed futile. He must have had enough of it, and stopped trusting my judgement last May. Why didn't you add starmyc to your Trust list? His feedback seems reasonable, and that would mean he'd be on DT2 when you're on DT1, and would level the playing field a bit I see you suggest others modify their trust list which is very good. I have checked your trust list and look like you have made only two changes in the last 12 Months (You Included o_e_l_e_o and excluded mdayonliner). That means you care a lot about whom you trust and distrust. You're right that I don't often change my Trust list. I don't really like being the one who adds someone onto DT2 unless I feel like it's absolutely deserved. I'm less worried about the DT1-voting, because that's much more decentralized than DT2 (once you're on DT1). I've explained the reasoning behind all my exclusions in Reference topic: Why are these members excluded on trust lists?. I have you on my Trust list and I am curious why don't you modify your trust list and make it bigger so that I can see more accurate feedback? Allow me to return the question: Why don't you make yours bigger if you want more accurate feedback?  People use their Trust List and Feedback power as daily routine things. I try to be conservative with the feedback I leave, so that it still means something. |
|
|
|
I think Proudhon gave me a merit  , you only Merited him once. |
|
|
|
if you and I use the same address to join the campaign, then that's the problem and this is how cheat hunters have hunted cheaters so far. That's my point: cheat hunters use methods that I wouldn't be able to defend myself against. It wouldn't be the first time someone gets framed by someone else. I'm glad Mods don't ban for this: Again, if someone publishes your address, it will be after you have published it. In any case, the publication of your address from someone else will be later than yours. It's also a good reason not to delete messages in which you've posted addresses for the first time if you plan to post them again later. Or better: it's an additional argument against address reuse. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it ironic I have to complete 2 captchas before I can register? Then, after completing them, it tells me "This email-address is forbidden for registration!". Not a good start of your service.
Anyway, I was curious how this works, and I couldn't find an explanation. I've seen captcha services for years, but never tried one. Would it be possible to use this in Tor browser, and if so, how bad is that for my privacy? I'd love to pay a fraction of a cent instead of spending up to 5 minutes solving captchas on Tor just to enter a website. But it's unclear to me how this would work.
|
|
|
|
So, can you explain why the 4 accounts use the same address? Posting an address is not the same as using it. Anyone can post it, only the real owner can sign a message from it. You can't link accounts based on an address they post, anyone can post an address I've posted, but that doesn't mean they're my alts. Here's theymos' address: 1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD  That doesn't make me theymos!My advice to LoyceV and also Tryninja, the scam addresses used by the 4 accounts above should be removed from the archive. I won't do that. My posts archive simply archives what has been posted. The posts in question still exists anyway. In cases when there is doubt about who posted what, my archive should be complete and accurate. Interpretation of the data is up to whoever looks at it. So some people who are now victims will be safer without having to explain the details of the problem again in the future. A better solution is to only use solid evidence when linking accounts. |
|
|
|
And can you show me all transactions that were made to this address? It looks like an empty Bitcoin address. What makes you think it's anything else than that? |
|
|
|
You're a funny troll. If Bitcoin wouldn't exist, you wouldn't have created an account here. Good luck with that  Then again: you're right!  |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see JollyGood changed his tag on BitcoinGirl.Club to neutral: BEWARE: BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted. Made baseless accusations against me as part of a revenge ploy to post lies then keep repeating them. Do not trust a compulsive liar as BitcoinGirl.Club
BitcoinGirl.Club seems mentally unwell, suffers from serious anger problems and from delusions of grandeur because of an overinflated ego (revised to neutral) I consider this correct use of the Trust system (independent of what it says). I do not agree with this. Only the color has changed. Saying that BitcoinGirl.Club is a liar, that he cannot be trusted and that he has mental problems, should be written in red. It should be red if he can back it up with a proper Reference link with proof. Without that, it's just his opinion. He's entitled to have one, and I prefer neutral over red for it. He propose:
I am a compulsive lair
Mentally unwell
Serious anger problem
I have delusions of grandeur
I have overinflated ego.
How even a neutral feedback applies here? Neutral works de-escalating. Other than that, when I read feedback like this, I simply ignore it. But usually it makes the person who wrote it look bad. My trust page is not for him to write my pathological reports. Sure he can, up to 5 posts. |
|
|
|
For the record DT level can be extended up to DT4 (please correct me if I am wrong) Correct, but your Trust settings will likely timeout. Take a look at the large recursive implications of Trusting users before increating your Trust depth. Chances are you're already trusting more people than you even know about. For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded. Agreed. Since it looks like that's what this topic is really about, I wrote my view here. |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see JollyGood changed his tag on BitcoinGirl.Club to neutral: BEWARE: BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted. Made baseless accusations against me as part of a revenge ploy to post lies then keep repeating them. Do not trust a compulsive liar as BitcoinGirl.Club
BitcoinGirl.Club seems mentally unwell, suffers from serious anger problems and from delusions of grandeur because of an overinflated ego (revised to neutral) I consider this correct use of the Trust system (independent of what it says). |
|
|
|
I agree in separating two parts. But since there are no point (at least this is how I looked it) to leave one neutral and another red so I decided to have all at once. The point is that it's more accurate  It seems, starmyc really is established person in his life right now, happy with the job now, he does not care at all. But he expressed his regret I'm sad because I spent quite some time to work on this stuff at the time and all I got is this bad reputation stuff. In my opinion, Lauda was too trigger happy on the red paint, and JollyGood goes down the same path. I especially dislike that this scares off good users, while real scammers will just continue with a new account. I've discussed some of JollyGood's negative tags a few times (probably in Reputation), but gave up after it seemed futile. He must have had enough of it, and stopped trusting my judgement last May. Why didn't you add starmyc to your Trust list? His feedback seems reasonable, and that would mean he'd be on DT2 when you're on DT1, and would level the playing field a bit: A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. I checked JollyGood's feedback on starmyc, and I'm surprised he tagged the user saying: When I asked for the source code he declined asking for more money. If I did not get the source code I would have to go back to him for every small tweak I wanted to make and therefore he would ask for more money again and again. Meanwhile, his own Reference link shows he didn't ask for source codes, and I think it's unreasonable to expect free source codes after you pay someone for a freelance job. |
|
|
|
I think there should be a dedicated BitcoinGirl.Club vs JollyGood thread. Now it's spread out too much and harder to find the details. First, let me remind you that my guide to correct use of the Trust system exists. I'll start with BitcoinGirl.Club's tag on JollyGood: Failed to pay starmyc $100 for the 2nd job.
In addition, the user used to be a scam buster (past) but now he use his earned reputation to process nonsense against the people he do not like, make others his hostage with the red tag, demands unlawful private information to share and protect his employers to secure his job. Do not take any tag left by him as good reference. The Reference link doesn't mention starmyc, so that part seems incomplete. If it's accurate, maybe you can make this a separate tag including proper reference link. But, and that's the main point, I get the feeling you used starmyc as an excuse to create a tag for the second part, and I think the second part should have been neutral. This doesn't mean "that trading with this person is high-risk". Make it neutral. It could mean you don't trust his judgement, in which case you can exclude them (and try to convince others to do the same). Remember this: A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle. Well I think you got your response in the form of a retaliatory red tag which is disappointing And that's the next point I want to address: JollyGood's tag on BitcoinGirl.Club: BEWARE: BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted. The accusations made against me are baseless and are part of a revenge ploy to post lies and then keep repeating them.
Not a surprise BitcoinGirl.Club did not leave red or neutral feedback for the Royse777/Bitlucy scammers but left me a revenge tag. Do not trust anything BitcoinGirl.Club says I'm confused: who left the first negative tag? I thought BitcoinGirl.Club was the first. Then why does JollyGood call that a revenge tag? JollyGood's tag looks like revenge to me: there's no Reference link, just an opinion that "BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted". The Royse777/Bitlucy part seems completely irrelevant to me: you can't tag someone for not tagging someone else! What happened to Be the bigger man? Receiving a negative tag does not mean trading with the person who left it is high-risk, so it doesn't justify tagging them too! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
