This is the first time I have ever heard the consequences of asking a question to be described as "getting away with it".

I am literally speechless for words as to how to respond to that. That sounds a lot like something someone might say who is being graded by the chinese social credit system.

BTW, I don't think Hhampuz thinks it is as ludicrous to expect payment as you do:

I won't comment on what I think Hhampuz should have done, but this was his reaction.

If you are doing business with someone, and you don't receive payment when you expected to, I don't think it would be an appropriate reaction for the person you are dealing with to "take it personally" when you question why you didn't receive payment.

I guess someone forgot to tell whoever Justice_ is that the marketplace subs are a "safe space"

There are multiple people that are guilty of this and these add up.

This empowers some other people to just go crazy with ratings that really don’t have any basis in fact or reality and act in bad faith when someone tries to talk about it.

People should have the right to express their opinion on if someone is a scammer or a high risk to deal with. If these opinions are not in line with the community as a whole, they shouldn’t be on DT, or they should leave ratings not in line with community consensus from an alt not on DT.

Owlcatz, based on evidence and testimony I have reviewed, played a minor role in the extortion scheme. Even though in a conspiracy, the crimes of one are the crimes of all, I believe it is appropriate to remove his name from the thread. If you disagree, or if you disagree with removing the tag against Lauda, you are free to add one yourself.

I don’t think moving to a flag system exclusively would solve the trust system problems. The flag system, and the smaller impact of negative ratings make it so an individual cannot unilaterally ruin a persons reputation.

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations. Over time people have been tagged, and when they had no realistic chance of defending themselves nor remediating their reputation after a mistake, they would rage quit, sometimes with a scam attempt that was either not serious or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. There are many guilty of doing this and more that defended this.

Many people have made mistakes in the past, and I would not suggest a permanent scarlet letter for most people that engaged in the above, especially if they are trying to be a benefit to the trust system. I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis, even if I still disagree with their past behavior and some of their current ratings. 

Re https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224780.msg53831608#msg53831608

I can use my good judgement to see if I believe they will reoffend or attempt a similar negative scheme again. Based on my good judgment, I don’t think Lauda will try a similar scheme in the future.

You are free to disagree with me if you choose. If you are who I think you are, you don’t like to criticize people with a lot of influence, at least not from your primary account. If you disagree, you are free to leave Lauda a negative rating for his previous misdeeds.

Let’s be honest though, I don’t think you actually care about warning the community about Lauda. My rating was not on the first page of Laudas trust wall, and probably wasn’t on the second. I think it would be unlikely for anyone unaware of his past to ever see my rating.

I should not have said that. I am sorry. 

Do you have any specific features for mobile devices? Or do you want to see anything differently when viewing from a phone?

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

It doesn't sound like he wants to remove his rating. It looks like he has a concern with this post from a month ago, and it appears that he responded to my message with another negative rating.

Specifically over the decision to not tag yahoo over the yobit situation. Yahoo was actively  promoting a business he acknowledged to be a scam. I think that fits the definition of 'high risk' pretty well, but it would be controversial nevertheless. This is actually a good example of the amount of insulation you get when you run signature campaigns.

I am not advocating for others to add lauda to their trust lists, or to blindly trust whatever he says without question, I am saying that a warning for lauda is no longer necessary.
This is the standard of which I base my decision to remove my tag.

I have stated before that I don't agree with the tag on TS. Given TS's trading history and trust level, I don't see the rating actually hurting him. The way the trust system is setup, these kinds of disputes don't remove his ability to have positive trust.

My speculation is Vod will be one of the last people to come around, if he ever does. He is a good example of that a small percentage of controversial ratings will not get you booted from DT if you have sent a lot of ratings. This is in contrast to the risk of getting booted after a single controversial/incorrect rating that was corrected quickly that was the standard 4-5 years ago.

I do hope that Vod comes around eventually. I think part of his problem is his ego, specifically him not wanting to ever be wrong (which results in him doubling down when he is wrong), and part of it is other things. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and no one likes to admit they are wrong.

I am also curious about this. I am not betting on him responding in any substantial way. I have my own opinion on ibminer, but I will keep that to myself.

Agreed. Make bitcointalk great again!

I think you know that to be untrue:

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life? If branded for life, what incentives do they have to not repeat previous mistakes, or to further escalate a dispute with a person?


Perhaps some of what you describe was petty fighting among all involved, and some was involving things that happened long enough ago that it is appropriate to forgive past transgressions.

I am curious how many people would be aware of these types of changes to a thread, and out of those who would be aware, who would want to complain about something like this.

What lauda did was wrong, and was a display of poor judgement. With that being said, what happened, happened a long time ago, I have good reason to believe lauda is remorseful for what he did, and to my knowledge he has not made a similar mistake since. I have left the extortion thread unlocked, and it will remain that way provided no trolls bump it to stir up drama.

I have also witnessed lauda making an attempt to gain consensus on potentially controversial red trust before handing it out.

I would say there is enough observable evidence that it is appropriate for me to remove my tag on lauda. I don't think many people are unaware of lauda's past, and with or without red trust, anyone is free to decide if they want to trust him or not.   

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Feel free to present evidence my statement is incorrect.

I sent him a PM with a recommendation that he remove his negative rating.

I did not put any conditions on my apology to Lauda. Nor did I make demands after the fact. It was an acknowledgement that I was in the wrong.

I believe the purpose of this thread is to further the descalation of the trust system, which is something theymos has been pushing for a long time now. (In addition to the stated purpose of the thread).

If you currently have red trust, I would suggest you make any victims whole. If you don’t have any victims, you should make an effort to descalate the situation yourself. There is no reason to waste time on unnecessary drama, even if you believe to be in the right. If you have what you believe to be unfair red trust, I don’t think it would be abusive to ask for a temporary counter while you try to get your red trust removed.  

I can’t speak for Lauda, but I don’t believe he has any corrupt intentions in creating this thread.

This is done.  

I also confirmed that my PMs are able to receive messages. I may see your message more quickly than if you post here.

Over the past days/weeks, I have locked various threads that may or may not have been petty fighting among various people. I posted that if someone has what I view to be a serious concern, I will allow it to be unlocked as long as I am confident the person isn’t trolling or causing drama. If someone posts in a thread I opened that is trying to troll or cause drama, it will be quickly locked. I also removed some people who I believe played a minor role in the "sting operation" from being named in the relevant thread title and OP.

I had not reviewed any old trust ratings, as I rarely use the trust system anymore (as far as I can tell, everyone is Trust: +0 / =0 / -0, except those I sent ratings to). I just reviewed my ratings to lauda, and revised them to a single neutral. If anyone else wishes for me to review a rating, they can PM me, and I will look at the rating.

Most likely, someone deposited some coin there. Hopefully he will see this thread and withdraw before someone else tries to have their withdrawal processed.

Thank you. I am out of merit and source merit, so I cannot merit your post at the moment.

I do promise to not repeat previous mistakes and to always do what I believe to be best for the community.

You should improve your posts before trying to join a new campaign. Establish a history of putting in a decent amount of effort into your posts.

You don't need to write a book for each of your posts, but you should put in some effort into thinking about what you want to say, and actually writing your post.

Good luck!

There are a limited number of people with the skills necessary to create the various tools he created. There are also a limited number of scammers that speak both Russian and English (the later well). I don’t think he appeared out of no where and started causing trouble. I am having trouble finding it, but I believe amaclin also used his negative trust in a way such that people were not warned when his newest scheme turned out to be fraudulent.

I am not aware of anyone else that fits the above criteria, all of which are substantive and trying to get negative trust fits the above mentioned pattern.

I would find it very unlikely the OP is CH. I also believe a copper member allows you to bypass newbie PM restrictions too.

They all have pretty good posts. I am holding off my vote for now, but gave some of them a handful of merit each on some of their good posts.

I think you are amaclin. If this is the case, you have a history of using deception to get people to send you money under the guise of it being 'risk free'. This is a good example of what I am talking about.