The official thread has been finally posted. Thank you for mentioning my small contribution to the project. 
Quite an amazing item that you have created in the end! |
|
|
|
How did you determine he was accepted into the signature campaign? That is right you did not.
Yeah, I totally did not determine that via this post: Everyone has been added.
Again, account clearly change hands. New owner, no reason to believe a scammer.
So if an account of a known scammer gets sold, all the previous ratings should be removed as the *new owner* is not a scammer? This would set a very dangerous precedence. Again, there were no defaulted loans if you would have done your research. Shame on you for not doing your research.
Seems like you are the one not doing any research here. Here is the user admitting that they have defaulted: Sorry for the loan defaulted
They did repay after being called out later, but that does not undo the default. Now you leave as much as you can for your power trip.
Others have come up with better accusations, e.g. I'm an alt of Lutpin, I'm getting paid by TF, I'm conspiring via SMAS. This is just not creative at all.  |
|
|
|
Are the lists on the first two posts the definitive SMAS blacklists? Is there a place where I can just retrieve a text file with just the names of all of the people on the SMAS blacklist? I am planning on including an SMAS blacklist indicator for my account pricer.
The second post was modified in order to suit such a purpose, i.e. a general list. This is it. However, I think it needs a duplicate check as Lutpin just merged the two lists together in a quick manner.
I will handle that right now. Update: List has been handled and sorted! |
|
|
|
In the one feedback you left rating stating signature spammer, yet, no signature campaign. Your reference shows feedback left for you after you left the feedback in the first place. That does not show nothing other than your feedback is BS because THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN IN THE ACCOUNT to be spamming. Tell us another one.
Oh really?  Look at what we have here: Username: feryjhie
Bitcoin Address: 1FERyQMm4aPnmbzEmd3xb4FZnQyGkkYv4b
Member Type: sr member
Date Joined: 8 June
I want to enroll for this month
Name: feryjhie
Posts: 1209
Activity: 252
Position: Sr. Member
Addy same as before
I'm well aware that they repaid the loan. However, they only did so when a scam accusation was raised against them which makes them untrustworthy. You stated one thing and then stated another. Read your feedback, you quoted signature spammer in a number of feedback with no signature and no activity in some time. That is just one of the many examples I have stated. The liar is telling us he is not a liar. Do not hate me if we do not trust your word.
No. You are mistaken since I was saying that I was not aware of any loans (your loans), and you thought the 'defaulted on a loan' was regarding your own loan (which it is not). They also did not wait until put in default trust to care about this forum and leave 64 times the negative feedback they left in the first 3 years of being a member, in the last 24 days.
Correct. DT3 ratings are mostly useless, thus leaving them would have been a pointless waste of time. |
|
|
|
I don't care. Create a category to have me blacklisted....it only re-affirms my concerns and drives home my point. Where does it end and what mechanisms might there be put in place to prevent a potential abuse of the reputation system by means of collusion? I agree that low quality posters clutter the forum....but potential reputation abuse has an even more volatile effect on the community. I'm just voicing some concerns.....that's all.
You're concerns are really misdirected, i.e. have no relevance here. Why are you looking at SMAS members when there is a lot of DT members that could be doing that? Where are the mechanisms to protect against that? Lutpin is not even tagging the accounts that I am. |
|
|
|
Could you please tell me how to find those who has Lauda in their DT? I am sorry, I still do not know everything and I use this forum to learn. I just do not want to see it be un-trusted because people like Lauda are permitted to do what they do.
I'll help you out here: Blazed, the same person that I asked to review this thread before I tagged you. I also thank you for correcting me regarding the legality, changed the rating to libel. We need to bring more bitcoin users in, not let people like him scare them away. Thank you for the help in advance.
If you mean scare away shady individuals and scammers, then you're right. |
|
|
|
You also stated that you do not know why they were left.
You seem really confused here, let me clarify some stuff. First of, I know why I left the rating, and it is clearly stated in the feedback: Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.
Also mentioned by you: You say this, yet you put in the initial feedback - Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.
This is not about YOUR loan, but a loan that the account defaulted back in 2015. Besides, that was not even the main reason behind the rating as it's clearly stated with "+ defaulted on a loan". I updated the trust rating and added proper reference in case that you're still confused. I want you out of the Default Trust position. You are a proven liar and all liars have a great chance to become a scammer.
No, I am not. If anything, you are proven to be either very confused or delusional. People like you disgust me.
How kind of you.
Again, I ask you to try to get your point out in a few sentences. Those walls of text are redundant and won't make you seem like you have a good argument. I mean, is it not obvious that accounts such as myself, Lutpin, Vod and others are all just pawns in Lauda's master plan to take over the forum and scam for hundreds of BTC?
Shh my perfect plan is coming all together slowly. |
|
|
|
If you actually read through my posts, you would see that I have provided reasonable proof that my claims are reasonable.
-snip-
All you did was provide walls of useless text. As I have stated previously: 1) I do not know what accounts you interacted with. 2) I do not target accounts that are collateral. 3) The primary targets are spammers, account farmers, alts (abusers) and account traders. Next these accounts were not used for account sales, they were being sold. Just like your false feedback, you do not know how to properly state true facts, do you.
So selling accounts = not engaging in account sales  I may be incorrect about this, for I don't understand the levels of trust. You are correct that all of the feedback are from un-trusted members.
DT1 members are trusted by theymos, and DT2 members are those that are in the trust list of DT1 members. DT1 and DT2 are trusted by default. However, I am seeing that BG4 is a level 3 Default trust member, if I am seeing this correctly and this is the feedback he left you:
-snip-
DT3 and further is deemed as untrusted, hence not visible by default. The BG4 situation is a whole other personal issue of a manufacturer unable to control their tantrum, with no relevance to this. Also the situation with defcon, and the chatlogs from a private chat is called poisoning the well fallacy. All those personal disputes were resolved, and I was not wrong in either one of them. This seems to be turning into a 'sling mud at Lauda' thread. f you are not even sure of this information, how can anyone trust your opinion and statements? Every other default member can tell me about the feedback they left a member when I question the feedback before giving a loan. Why can't you?? But the community is supposed to trust your statements.
Do you have some comprehension problems? I have not left those accounts ratings due to any loans.
What difference does it matter which accounts were mine.
-snip-
How about you stop writing useless walls of text, and get to the point in 2-3 sentences? What is it that you want from this thread now? I have clearly stated several times that the ratings were not left because they are collateral. |
|
|
|
Attacker moved to digital ocean. 3-4 SPV wallets per IP.
-snip-
I did recently find a new set of IPs when restarting my node. However, any experienced user should be able to identify these due to them being very obvious. 3-4 wallets per IP is shady. |
|
|
|
@OP Yes. Did Amph get banned or something?
No. This remains the biggest mystery of my forum-life. Good old Yobit, how I miss that campaign.
It was much worse pre-Hilariousandco. They could step it up another notch though. |
|
|
|
Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?
Just read the thread. It is a joint effort to fight spam via a general blacklist. Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?
We can not gain such an *ability*. I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm no magician. And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?
What collusive marketing practices? And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.
Yahoo is not in DT, and most of the trust ratings left by Lutpin and me are not on the same members (at this time). What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?
1) How exactly does one "eliminate a rogue campaign" by having a general blacklist? 2) I do not even know what that means. I feel like you're implicitly trying paint the image of malicious intent behind SMAS. |
|
|
|
Your claim of calumny would be correct if you could prove that my statements were false. Because you have yet to even try to prove my claims were false, your claim of calumny has no standing anywhere.
No. It is you, who has to prove your alleged claims (something which you did not do). After some additional digging, I see that one of the feedback you left was on an account you inquired about purchasing from another member but were turned down for a low offer. Smells fishy to me! I can not prove this, so it is just hearsay at this time. I have messaged the member to give me proof so we can dig deeper into you.
Another member committing felonies via defamatory statements? I can't wait to get more *details* about these fantasies. ..showing you have spent countless minutes bashing me and wining about it all on here..
I did no such thing. ..instead of taking 5 minutes to show proof your feedback is accurate or that you have good reason to leave it. I think you will not show proof because you have no proof to show.
I do not have to prove anything as the proof is in the post history on said accounts. Besides, even if they were not used for spamming, they are still used for account sales (diff. reason, same consequence). Other trusted members are even agreeing with me, check your feedback.
What other "trusted members"? All the negative ratings on me are from untrusted members which have been exposed in one way or another.
At this point I'm not even sure: 1) Which accounts are/were yours. 2) Where the loans took place. |
|
|
|
It can also be a boring task, and may make you lose your motivation to hunt them. Could a few people team up to do this?
Yes, people could create a joint pad online and work on it (e.g. Fatanut posts updates for Signature Campaign Overview thread) until it catches up to this thread. I would have no problem updating the thread with new information though (this one is quite outdated). It would be really nice if campaign managers can join forces creating a blacklist. Giveaways are a great way to call them out.
Well, there is SMAS but that is solely focused on signature campaigns. |
|
|
|
Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager?
Yes, however that has been shown to not work because: 1) Advertisers hire random fools to manage their campaigns just because they are cheap. 2) There are managers that do not care (at all). 3) Some services manage their own campaigns.
The other alternatives are: Neg. rating both managers and service and/or banning them (per new signature campaign guidelines). What is the goal of such a network? Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling other advertisers as "rogue" members and working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line?
To fight back spam as widely as possible. The involved managers usually handle most of their business on their own (e.g. I do not tell Lutpin what to do). What you are describing is a scenario where the members of SMAS are actively colluding to gain an advantage over the other campaigns, which is not the case. Mob rules? I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.
3 people are neither a *mob* nor a *centralized authority*. I'd say that SMAS has been pretty effective so far. If the number of campaigns managed by the participating managers rises, then it will become even more effective. |
|
|
|
if they hold their 8% for 1 year from the segwit install date, Segwit Fails
Nope. They would get outhashed. A True Hard Fork only requires 70% , because you want enough hash to make sure the 30% can not 51% attack your new chain.  False. Requires 95% for any reasonable design. You Nervous Nancies do realized that some ALTs hard fork 2 or 3 times a year with Zero Problems.
Comparing technical aspects of different crypto is not trolling , it is called Analyzing.
Nobody in their right mind gives a damn about some shitcoins hard forking 100 times a year. I run a Blockchain snapshot Service, Multiple Coins Communities Trust Me , can you say the same?
That service is as useful as your trolling attempts. If your BTC Devs had the Courage to Hard Fork SegWit, then it would have already been implemented or had already failed.
Hard forks are inherently dangerous in a widely deployed infrastructure (which no shitcoin, e.g. ZEIT, is). |
|
|
|
I'd like to see that happen. Would you (or someone else) go through all the reports with valid proof that weren't added, or would you just take what is in OP? Using the print + Ctrl F causes a lot of lag for me.
Well, going to the whole backlog first before creating the thread would take up a lot of time (I may only end up catching up in a few weeks). I'd just start a new one, and keep adding the latest discoveries in addition to slowly adding those from the past (I'd use an additional date column). |
|
|
|
Lauda has also expressed his interest in starting a similar thread(and would like me to lock this one), let me know what you guys think about it.
Still need more input on this. I'd just create the exact same thread and try to keep it updated. |
|
|
|
i dont know if is useful, but for myself i create a little php script for check "posts count" and "calculate EUR"
Well, it is most definitely useful for me since everything is automated from Bitmixer (counting and payments). Maybe it will be useful for some other people; good work.
Banning Round 7: The following users were banned: omegaflare
jetfox
BlackBaron
amacar1
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
