Bitcoin Forum
November 15, 2019, 12:42:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1  Other / Meta / Are these legitimate deletes or is someone spoofing these to my message box? on: April 06, 2019, 09:41:36 PM
I've had around 10 within a few seconds of each other and they all just say this

Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
no

all come from bitcoin guest ( but then all my other deletes do)

these seem to link to nothing though?

I doubt I just said no to anything since i usually prefer to give a longer  answer with more detailed explanation.

I think 2 said "nah" not "no"

but even so it is unlikely and to get around 10 within a few seconds from each other seems like a spoof

this is why it would be best to have the mods contact who deleted it on each one so you could discuss it with them if you wanted to know why. This from "bitcoin guest" seems less useful
2  Other / Meta / Natural permitted flow of a thread - 3. flawed reasoning on the basis of prior on: April 04, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
Local rules - No contributors to my fanzine thread here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0 can post here
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.

This one is VERY important


Opinions voiced that are clearly disingenuous, demonstrate double standards or flawed reasoning.


This is similar to the precedents one although not exactly the same so requires a separate thread to avoid confusion.

Say you stumble on to a thread debating certain actions to be taken on the basis of certain prior instances of behaviour. You start to read through and you notice that a person is advocating actions that are completely contradictory to his prior reactions on an identical matter? or perhaps is advocating/suggesting punishment for things they have done themselves and feel it was okay in their case.

I mean surely for the novice reader or any reader that wants the full picture? Sometimes people just give out opinions without substantiating them at all. If you come to a thread and the 10 people there are all advocating a certain action be taken then you may be persuaded they are correct just through force of numbers and their consensus.

I mean if you are able to demonstrate that these people are clearly demonstrating double standards and that their comments should be viewed in that context then you are assisting the optimal solution. So the reader says to himself hang on a moment perhaps I should withhold my judgement until I do a bit more research here and see if these actions they are all suggesting are fair and consistent and appropriate in this instance.

 Also now that I am aware that these members are demonstrating either clear double standards or flawed reasoning then I must be wary of taking anything they say at face value.  I mean surely it is the responsibility of all members to highlight double standards and flawed reasoning when it is clearly a very similar/identical and relevant scenario being discussed?

It seems like it is hiding relevant information not to bring this to light. The people that are demonstrating clear double standards/flawed reasoning then have the opportunity to expand or explain if they have been misunderstood or have something new or as yet unmentioned to present that will demonstrate they appear to be exhibiting double standards /flawed reasoning but are actually not guilty of that at all. Perhaps they  did not reveal some information that all readers should be privy to for them to reach the optimal solution. Once that is revealed then again the debate is more likely to reach the optimal outcome.

Again this being called off topic and irrelevant seems counter productive for a debate that intends to reach the optimal solution


3  Other / Meta / Natural permitted flow of a thread - 2. precedents and prior behaviours on: April 04, 2019, 09:37:30 AM
Local rules - No contributors to my fanzine thread here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0 can post here
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.


So this is another example of where the permitted flow seems flawed if you want to stand a chance of reaching the optimal solution. Surely one must be permitted to bring all information that is relevant to the discussion. I mean how will you have  a chance at reaching the optimal outcome/solution if some pertinent information is held back?

Example  - Say we are discussing or debating what should be done about a persons actions in terms of punishment or reward depending on if it is negative or positive actions. Then precedents set in similar or identical situations should be used to determine a fair and consistent behaviour towards persons whom demonstrate these positive or negative actions?  but these are apparently off topic and not allowed? this seems counter productive?

Of course the precedents must be for very similar or identical scenarios to be relevant and on topic but why would they not be permitted as natural flow?

4  Other / Meta / Natural permitted flow of a thread - 1. The false allegation. on: April 04, 2019, 09:16:25 AM
Local rules - No contributors to my fanzine thread here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.0 can post here
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.


If you find a thread where someone has made a false accusation about you, then apparently you are not allowed to request they present evidence to substantiate this claim because it can be seen as off topic?  I notice a great proportion of deleted posts seem to look just like legitimate truthful defences against false accusations or out right lies. I mean even in your own thread where you are the OP -- if someone comes in and makes a false accusation and it devolves into an argument you yourself can be deleted for going off topic?

What can be done?  You just have to let it seem like a legit claim and say nothing?

Should you not be able to request evidence or it seems you are fucked, and also supply observable evidence of your own to demonstrate their untrustworthy nature to further destroy their credibility?

If you call them out and the thread starts to go off topic you get reported and deleted?

I mean you can not report them for being off topic if they accuse you of being guilty of something that is being discussed in the OP. You can not report them for false accusations because  the mod has no way to know if it is true.

It seems like a loop hole that can be exploited quite nicely to get a person in a lot of trouble.  

I think people that make false allegations repeatedly without evidence to substantiate should be the ones in trouble not those defending themselves.

5  Other / Meta / Deleted posts - do these all count when an entire thread is deleted? on: April 02, 2019, 11:25:46 PM
I am compiling a list of my deleted posts and their context for future reference and actually I notice huge swathes sometimes entire pages in my message box are all from threads that  no longer exist. I have located 2 entire threads from different OP's that have been totally vaporized and all of those posts of mine in there are coming as separate deletes or at least that is what it looks like?

Should these not just count as 1 delete? when the thread gets taken down. The best part is all that important information and evidence is still there which is fantastic.

But I mean if you have say 25 posts in one thread and it gets deleted why do you get 25 messages saying post deleted? one by one? or is it possible that all the posts were deleted individually one after another and then then thread was nuked later on?

Does this happen for every person that is banned? Their threads (they started) are deleted?  is that not incredibly dangerous if true because the historical damage is huge in some cases.  Were anonymints topics deleted that he started?

6  Economy / Reputation / Bones261 Liar and Untrustworthy dirt bucket. on: March 31, 2019, 08:47:56 PM
Bones only

Bones261 - proliferating false information about me. This  dirty little human excretion  is now making up more disgusting lies about me. I had previously considered him more reasonable than some of the others but now I was alerted to him felching away on  other DT scoundrels and making up out right lies about me.

You can say CH is just against whole DT members.

    It extends beyond that. He also is against people who are in the top 200 merit receivers, merit sources, staff members who delete any of his posts, anyone who uses the report to moderator function, anyone who disagrees with his "facts," anyone who belongs to a signature campaign, anyone who ever invested in Dash, etc etc etc. Unfortunately, when his sparring partners get sick of being belittled and don't feed him anymore, he always finds someone new to respond to his posts. Quite frankly, the only temporary solution to counter his behavior is to shadow ban him, which I'm sure will never be implemented. If he ends up getting banned, I'm sure we will be treated to a string of alt accounts, ad infinitum.

Let us break down his post and isolate every single misleading statement and out right lie.


1.He also is against people who are in the top 200 merit receivers

misleading - only those observably cycling merit to their pals

2. merit sources

misleading - there are many I have no idea who they are.

3.staff members who delete any of his posts

LIE - only those that delete posts that are on topic and relevant or those that delete my defensive posts to prior false accusations and lies by others who attack me first and then just  leave their posts there.

4. anyone who uses the report to moderator function

LIE obviously this is nothing to do with me in the vast majority of cases

5. anyone who disagrees with his "facts,"

LIE - well you have had plenty of time to produce the incorrect information I am proliferating. I mean if you want to disagree with a fact that's your issue.

6. anyone who belongs to a signature campaign

LIE and foolish statement

7. anyone who ever invested in Dash

LIE innocent investors are the victims


this disgusting dirty little rimming parasite is always pretending to be reasonable then sneaking away to ass kiss his DT masters and adding lies and false accusations about me in their protected self moderated thread.

Come debate here BONES261 so I can crush you like the dirty little wretch  that you are.

Bring your evidence of your false claims here so I can laugh at you like the disgusting fool that you are. Once I demonstrate you are making false accusations then I insist that you fix your post else I will brand you and observable liar and untrustworthy.

If you can not substantiate your false allegations then you should retract your comments and adapt your post.





edit bones nicely agreed to  recant his false accusations



7  Other / Meta / Mods now deleting posts regarding them supporting scammers? how far can it go? on: March 30, 2019, 03:15:43 PM
I think we need a transparent system that helps us see which mods are deleting posts.

I posted on the hostfat (is a bad guy) thread that his seemingly complicit actions and conflict of interest is not something new. Many mods support knowingly those that are proven liars, and scammers and said that lauda (a proven scam protector, liar, trust abuser and probable extortionist) claiming host far is a terrible mod is not something that essentially validates your claims.

Hostfats actions seemingly look in poor taste but considering other mods will support openly those with even MORE shady history then I do not think he will be removed as the OP requested.

Now it was deleted?

Why?
Which mod deleted it?

I say again. Mods here are openly supporting those that observably lie,support scams, trust abuse and are probable extortionists and those that demonstrate other sneaky greedy and devious actions.

If this is deleted then give a reason and tell me which mod is deleting it.

It looks shady as hell.

Again - want to refute this or debate it then just ask me.

I am getting tired of these people being allowed to punish those presenting observable events that demonstrate their clear wrong doing. Time for this to be sorted out.

You mention observable events that demonstrate DT are shady you get red trust.
You mention observable events that demonstrate DT are red trusting you for whilstblowing more red trust
You mention observable events that demonstrate mods are supporting those DT you get deleted

haha free speech is thriving here on bct.

Yes I am very willing to get into a debate on this..... come on mods where are you? which mod is deleting my posts?

I try and discuss this with them and they will not discuss it.





8  Other / Meta / Getting merits for talking about merits - let's just call it merit board? on: March 30, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
Local rules - no sub 150 activity puppet scum.


I mean look at just this example

I mean of course none of the goons in meta will accept this so I just post it for historical reasons.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190330143829/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0

How many loyceV (cheap robo vac  AI with limited stats analysis skills just above raw data spew) threads does meta need? Let's chip in for a new robo vac  that can generate some real discussion and debate. It has basically stopped sucking up dirt in theymos's dogs kennel and designated its entire processing power to generating more merit stats puke to spew all over then entire board. It is almost the entire page of meta now.


What was actually on meta board before theymos dreamed up the ingeniously board wrecking free speech crushing notion of merit and then installed LoyceV on his robovac to pump out every conceivable merit stat to fill meta with? whilst sucking back up swathes of merit for trying to apply some meaning to the meaningless rubbish that now enables full on scammers, liars, and other untrustworthy dregs to do as they wish with impunity

I mean I just had a quick swim and thought I would see if there was anything interesting or any progress in the direction of bringing back free speech and ridding the board of a gang of untrustworthy scum bags.

NOPE.

The vast majority of threads were just the robovac spewing out more merit stats to attract more merits weeee round and round.  I mean I have never seen any board so dominated and fascinated by a metric that we all know is pretty much meaningless (in suchmoons words).

Why not give merit it's own board? and keep meta for things that actually have some meaning?

Wanna debate any of this that would be great. Make sure you have some kind of realistic grasp of the mechanisms behinds merit and trust before engaging though because I can't waste too much of today schooling noob trash dummies blinded by merit enabled $ig campaign$$$$$

Yes I am getting bored of waiting for my red trust to be removed and for something to be done about those observably scamming, lying and trying other shady shit and punishing those that whilstle blow on them after they were attacked for no good reason themselves by these crooks.













9  Other / Meta / THEY SAY HE'S TROLLIN THEY HATIN ..................This is a serious matter !!!! on: March 23, 2019, 02:59:42 AM
Local rules - no accounts with less than 150 activity, no making it personal. This discussion is for creating sensible general rules that apply to ALL persons equally.


Let us not focus on any one person, but rather a general rule that I think we need to establish here. Since the trolling accusation is often weaponized to silence people or provide excuse to avoid tackling issues we may just be ashamed of.


If we are to "constantly" accuse a person/s of trolling or being a troll then should we not be required to present evidence to substantiate  this claim?  It is quite a serious accusation after all.

I mean if the accused on numerous occasions insists they are NOT trolling, that their information is correct and true, and challenges the accuser to provide evidence to substantiate their claim then surely the onus is on the accuser to present the OBVIOUSLY FALSE NONSENSE that they the accused  are continually said to be promulgating ?? I mean surely it must be proven false or incorrect ??

Surely if the accuser can NOT provide proof of OBVIOUSLY FALSE NONSENSE then they themselves are TROLLING by continually presenting false information/accusations regarding that person being a troll. When they have constantly failed to substantiate their "claims".

You can not simply call someone a troll because you want them to stop saying things that you do not like or that you feel are true but casts you in an unfavourable light. That is just an unfair weapon to crush free speech/the truth.

I mean if the person accused of being nothing other than a troll challenges his accusers to present even one example of his obvious false nonsense and they can not.... then surely they must be careful not to meet the criteria of becoming trolls themselves??

I think that a person should be able to challenge his accusers in a rep thread,  and if they can not present evidence of habitual posting false information then they must be warned about making this same accusation again.

Let's start allowing the truth to shine through here on BCT again.




The rules on this board say...

"If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post)."


Apologies for my numerous posts today but unexpected poor weather provided me with opportunities that I had to capitalise on. Sadly I will be unable to sustain this level of content creation.

10  Other / Meta / ANALOGY - Let me see who says what - OPEN challenge mods and THEYMOS welcome on: March 22, 2019, 05:32:45 PM
Local rules - no qwk since as he says the truth does not interest him and red trust for innocent people is good because it just creates added awareness of the dangers out there. No sock puppets with less than 150 activity.
DISCUSS ONLY THE ANALOGY HERE nothing else.


So here is the analogy


Alice is on the bus and suddenly BOB (alice has never seen him before) turns up and grabs Alice's cell phone and claims he is keeping it and it is now his own personal cell phone. Alice then says to BOB give my phone back BOB or else I will go to the cops and report this theft. (report bob to the police for taking her phone away by force ...extra clarity needed for some people apparently)

MANY DT members now claim this is how they view that analogy and how each character should be viewed and treated.


Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy

Bob = victim and trustworthy

Police should reward BOB  and punish Alice.


They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.  

I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.

Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha











11  Other / Meta / How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale? on: March 21, 2019, 05:14:35 PM
Local rules - no members can post in this thread that have less than 150 activity - had enough of obvious puppet accounts. Also no groundless opinions. Bring a reasonable case to substantiate any claims or opinions given. If I say your reply is groundless or off topic  then you must delete it within 24hours else you are breaking my local rules.
                

It seems the accepted stance by many DT here is that selling or buying an account is worthy of a red tag. This is not the debate here though.

So, if someone advertises their account for sale then say about a month later there is a post from that account states the account is no longer for sale, then how can we know if that account was sold or not?

I mean surely the best way to get away with selling their accounts here is to get the new owner to announce the account is no longer for sale?

We could say look at some kind of address used before and after?  but what if that was sold with the account?

I guess there is no real way to know? So anyone advertising their account for sale must be classed as a sold account?










12  Other / Meta / MODS DELETING FACTS - which mod is it? Time for them to answer for this. on: March 07, 2019, 09:14:12 PM
Some mod has just started deleting hard facts that I post in response to false accusations by the pharmacist aka Huge Black Woman the PROVEN greedy racist trolling sig spammer sock puppet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231
start reading there and go down a few posts


The thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118069.0

The false accusation that I ask him to legitimise

It takes a hell of a lot, unless the posts are obvious off-topic  advertising spam, or short shitposts like what Leo posted here, and I suspect that member reported in the OP will get banned eventually.  And I don't think that example shows any sort of decline in the quality of the forum, since there's been numerous posters of at least that shitty of post quality before.  It's not anything new.

What's worse is the type of wall-of-text garbage that people like cryptohunter spews, because he keeps repeating the same noxious slime across quite a few of his own threads, those of his confederates, and even those who don't want him in theirs.  There's nothing original in any new post by him (or Thule, for that matter), nor are they innocuous.  If Theymos actually listened to their nonsense, it'd be a field day for scammers and riffraff.  That crap should be first on the bonfire IMO.

My fact based reply with a sensible challenge to prove his false accusations.

Which I will not re post word for word since they will use this excuse to say I am flouting some stupid rule.

1. I correctly state that is amazing how someone like the pharmacist aka Huge Black Woman (the racist trolling sig spammer imbecile who got busted for being extra greedy and trying to swap to a higher paying sig campaign on his puppet account) can now come and lecture others on spamming and how they should be banned.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231

2. I then challenge this dumb hypocritical fool to prove my walls of text are trolling garbage and present the Incorrect information that I present in them.

BOOM my post deleted.

Also another one highlighting such moons observable double standards is deleted.


Who reported them and which mod is crushing THE OBSERVABLE TRUTH being presented?

This is flagrant and utter one sided political silencing of the truth. They are lecturing in the open others on spamming and trolling and making false accusations against persons who are not even allowed to post the truth and challenge them to produce the evidence of their false claims.

I dare the mod to come here and debate their decision. Also which scum bag who is scared of the truth wants to stop it being presented?

Also it is strange to me another person who highlighted this fact was banned and their entire thread dedicated to this subject was deleted.

It should be transparent to see which mods are behind this attack on free speech and a persons ability to even answer these accusations cast against them.  This happened in the thread that someone started about this topic before my posts were removed and all the other swearing and accusations that came first and attacked me were allowed to stay.

This other moron ieoioe or whatever tries to say that he is too stupid to make sense of a clear post that defends against a false accusation and provides facts and observable events to back up my refutation of what I'm falsely accused of by someone who is a proven trolling sock puppeting sig spammer?

It would seem these people can go around making false accusations about other people but when asked to substantiate these false claims you get deleted? You are not allowed to present facts that demonstrate they are hypocrites even daring to make such false accusations in the first place?

Mod come and debate this with me now. This is ludicrous.




13  Other / Meta / Why is META not a SIG SPAM FREE ZONE? surely you want real Enthusiasts opinions? on: March 04, 2019, 10:50:26 AM
Local rules - anyone can post .. but opinions must be accompanied by a observable events and facts that substantiate your claims or else do NOT post.


Given the fact that meta is a board where real enthusiasts (who apparently care enough about the board to post feedback and advise for theymos and cyrus to review) are supposed to congregate to propose and discuss ideas for the improvement of this board, then why don't we make it a sig spam free zone.

This board meta sadly is the most sig intensive on the entire forum (or perhaps it just seems like that because everyone is a "legend" and their banners are all just huge unlike other sub boards).

Also I notice STRONGLY that these are not banners of interesting projects that they believe in at all. This is all gambling and other just "highly paid" campaigns that demonstrate the wearers just want to spam as much btc dust as they can.

This tells me these people are financially driven posters and quite willing to spam anything for their own selfish financial gain. Given this, then any advise/voting or suggesting from these types are likely to be "me first" board later considerations and motives.

You want people that are REAL enthusiasts for bitcoin and who would like to see an end to end decentralised trustless arena build from here. Those that put the emphasis on creating a board or environment best suited for that to develop over time. Not short sighted get rich first then abandon like I have noticed many have done.

So then let us encourage REAL enthusiasts, those that will willingly participate here in META without the need to be paid2post and will push suggestions and ideas that are not for selfish gain first and board 2nd (if at all).

Let us make meta into a Sig Spam Free Zone?

Who agrees with this.

So what if you have less posters here and only the real enthusiasts remain. If I was running a board I would rather hear the less diluted and shouted down views of those I knew had the best interests of the board at heart. Rather that  than having to sift though the selfish suggestions of a bunch of sig spammers pushing their huge banners in your face.

The exceptions could be mods I guess.

I mean if people stop posting here in meta then sadly they were just financially motivated I guess and not in on this journey for the long haul.

If you do not agree then state the logic and reason employed to reach the opinion you have.
14  Other / Meta / 3 separate posts on separate threads deleted - which mods and who reported? on: March 01, 2019, 03:11:55 AM
Is suchmoon a secret mod here now?

I would like clear detailed explanation for why 3 of my posts have been deleted today.

I would also like to know who reported them. Suchmoon already confessed to taking me off ignore today so she can get my posts deleted. This is completely out of control.

I would like to know which mods deleted them and if they even reviewed those posts?

I actually see nothing worthy of deleting them in any of them at all. I am tired of suchmoon having her own way here on every single matter. This is doubly annoying since she insisted my merits were removed and then they were and stingers deleted from merit source.

This is all getting far too 1 sided.

You have a bunch of proven untrustworthy scoundrels trying to take control of every aspect of the board.

I mean this snitching bitch obviously reports 100s per day so most are auto deleted but this is getting crazy.

15  Other / Meta / How to tell which mod actually deletes a post? on: February 28, 2019, 09:14:49 PM
As per the title.

How to tell which mod deletes a post?

Do Global mods have the powers to moderate all boards or are there boards that have their set mod and that is that?
16  Other / Meta / Who exactly told theymos to change the threshold to 250 cycled merits? on: February 28, 2019, 12:37:53 PM
Local rules - anyone can reply who can substantiate their post with observable events or facts. No person can voice opinion without presenting credible evidence to substantiate it. Else I would like their post removed like mine always are even when they are on topic, relevant and supported with credible evidence or observable events.


Originally I noticed the DT new mechanism hinged upon they key positions of 100 earned merits.

Who here told coaxed Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

My money is on suchmoon? seems to have too much influence here like instructing him to remove my merits from an objectively merit worthy post that stood worthy of merit (compared to most of the trash she merits) regardless of honest intent as specified by the merit source.

My question remains unanswered as to what the reasoning is on upping it to that level since we know that centralises it greatly to the same people that ride the merit-merry-go-round

What is the point of making a pseudo decentralised system that actually just centralises it and places firm control of DT into the hands of those that observably

1. cycle merits amongst themselves.
2. collude to include each other on DT
3. collude to exclude mostly the same members from DT
4. Can be seen discussing and colluding if key trust support should be pulled or given depending on others trust lists essentially cherry picking who they want in the trust system.
5. Wtf has merit got to do with trust? A long history here is far more important. Since if you have not done anything untrustworthy for 5 years then you are more trustworthy than those getting merits from proven untrustworthy persons for supporting their agendas and ideologies to me. Also that account is far more valuable since it will take years to replace -- no short cuts. So if you are risking something far more valuable then you are less likely to scam.


This is not decentralising it it is centralising it and at the same time allowing free speech to be crushed on this board.



I would like to know

1. who told theymos to raise to 250 merits?
2. why it would not be better to make it 100 earned merits + 1500 activity or even 2000 activity?
3. some trading history perhaps??

It would then

1. decentralised DT far more
2. take much longer to power up an account for DT hence giving more history to examine before trusting
3. make it harder to collude for the observable colluders in the merit-merry-go-round
4. free speech gets a break from the jack boot of the merit/dt colluders.
5. If you have been here years you are far more likely to be wealthy and not need to scam like noobs. Your account is also far far harder to replace now. You are talking years not just a few months like some DT have been here.


Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I see a bunch of noobs on DT that have no place being there only to serve their merit merry go round masters and serve their direct will. They have no history to examine and their accounts are not worth much in terms of replication. Some are barely snr members?

The entire thing is observable ludicrous.

The old system was far better than this.

Even up it to 2000 activity hence if you are proven untrustworthy and black listed then that is going to be YEARS to replace that account under a sock.

Throw in the requirement for 50 successful trades if you want.  Although of course that can be gamed.

It can all be gamed to an extent it is just making it harder and harder to game that is the key.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

You don't have judges who are proven previous criminals do you? or proven liars? or those that clearly demonstrate sneaky and greedy actions for financial reward?? wtf is this board turning into?  These people should be the ones glowing red not the ones painting honest members accounts red and only allowing their "pals" onto DT to condone and add support to their wrongdoing.

I've been watching this and now that this bunch of colluders are firmly entrenched in the DT system there is no way to see them removed unless by their own will. Since they are all mostly "merit" sources too the entire thing is completely ludicrous.




 


17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Discussion (Altcoins) / Did Binance steal some Blocknets DEX secrets and could they be sued for this ??? on: February 25, 2019, 05:43:38 PM
Rumours cycling that Binance stole some parts of Blocknets DEX design?

If this is true then will this open them up to legal action or not?

This is kind of sneaky and devious behaviour from a top Exchange if it is confirmed.

Just read about it on another site and they seem to have some serious gripes here.

If there is some truth to this then that could have very serious implications for Binance in future.

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/blocknet-alleges-binance-dex-contains-stolen-technical-data-from-its-blockdx-decentralized-exchange/

there was a youtube vid somewhere but I can't find it again at this time.



18  Economy / Reputation / Timelord2067 com DO NOT TRUST proven trust abusing untrustworthy scumbag. on: February 14, 2019, 07:39:25 PM
Timelord2067 untrustworthy and abuses the trust system.

Gives me red trust for making this post


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106712.msg49714728#msg49714728

this post presents some facts and my opinion

Plus he pushes some false allegations that I am bruno.

This person is completely abusing the trust system and therefore untrustworthy.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106712.msg49714728#msg49714728

I would suggest great caution in dealing with the person. He obviously has some untrustworthy agenda.

His website

DO NOT CLICK THE LINKS BELOW

https://www.timelord2067.com could actually contain virus, malware, or trojans. I would be very careful with any untrustworthy persons website. Take precautions because if you get a virus or trojan or wallet stealer you will regret it.


Or this website https://www.getpaidinbitcoin.com.au that may contain the virus or trojans ...

It is very clear that if a person is proven untrustworthy then anything they say or anything they promote needs to be treated with extreme caution.

If you do not wish to be trust abused or support untrustworthy persons who try to silence others from presenting facts or having opinons then

~Timelord2067  in your trust settings under default trust.

Notice the ~   that must be in front of this untrustworthy schemers user name in your trust list.

More trust abuse here on a completely unlikely and crazy hunch

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105851.0
19  Other / Meta / Where did this thread vanish to? was it moved or just nuked for good on: February 09, 2019, 12:37:44 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096914
20  Other / Meta / Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. on: February 08, 2019, 02:51:08 PM
Theymos can you explain your reasoning on honest meriting of merit worthy posts by those that clearly announce their intentions vs those that are sneaky about it and report others whilst clearly doing it themselves?

This is not a criticism I want to understand how this even works here in your mind.... It is another long post but I feel that if you read it all and give a thorough explanation then this could start to push the systems of control in the correct direction faster and create less collateral damage along the way. Merit is the key to these newly introduced control systems.


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.

Anyone following those rules can post.


This is a system wide discussion of a topic that theymos commented on personally himself and made clear that political motivation for a post is not allowed and only the post value itself should determine the merit given.

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.


If you were to take an objective view of the posts made by persons here below and merited by each other
(I will add others because actually I believe many many persons merit based on pure political agreement and do not even bother to analyse the post for VALUE that you can substantiate if they were called on it. Just claiming their opinion is valuable because it demonstrates a consensus with your own and strengthens your case (in your mind) is of course political in terms of discussing other members or issues relating to how the forum functions.)


         Foxpup -
         Lauda -
         The Pharmacist -
         marlboroza
         owlcatz
         suchmoon
         Coolcryptovator
         DireWolfM14
         Hhampuz
         Jet Cash
         LoyceV
         TMAN
         o_e_l_e_o
         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.

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.

Their connection/collusion/political allegiance  is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds. However, they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.
This actually makes them far less trustworthy than a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"

So not only have you (in my opinion) on suchmoons (provable double standards and highly politically motivated merit cycler) guidance punished an honest person regarding his intentions you have removed merit from merit worthy posts that present factual information of great value in the removal of stingers and his correctly applied (from an objective pov) merit . This is not wise in my opinion because...

The merit should have only been removed if the posts themselves were clearly not merit worthy else that is demonstrating the system is nothing to do with the objective post quality. Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post. That is a fallacy of the ad hominem variant.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits. You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.


If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post then we have just punished an honest person and rewarded a sneaky person for complaining about the same actions he takes, but he is too devious (or not as blatant) about announcing it, but his actions clearly demonstrate this as do the actions of most other merit sources from his circle.


I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.

Punishing someone who announced their intentions honestly to find merit worthy posts and merit them from persons who subscribe to his personal political views on this board at the behest of a circle that are doing that in plain sight and making jokes about it is quite a bad move. I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?? I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Surely there can not be one rule for one side of this political rift and not for the other can there?

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value (many of which have zero value and are misleading)? also are withholding merit on this same basis??

Or do you deny this is happening? You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members? Please try to be really look at this situation deeply and objectively.

I have clearly said before that I do believe you want what is best for the board and that is your only concern. I still believe this even in light of the curious and strange answers that you gave last time which I would still love to debate with you and I am sure that I could alter your views.

However, i am speculating that you are willing to take some collateral damage to innocent persons to achieve an eventual result that is more fair than the path that leads to that.  This i understand, but I feel that just a bit of analysis of what I have said here and some strong words to those committing WORSE than what stingers got punished for could speed up to the eventual result that you are looking for. I am however happy you have spoken out on DT lately and said that should be for scammers only to get red trust. This is a great announcement and should now allow person to voice their love or hate of lemons more freely.

I mean if you tell me that these people are objectively meriting posts on their value and that they are not guilty of WORSE than stingers (because he made efforts to merit only merit worthy posts and openly announced his intentions) whilst they merit posts of zero value and low effort but will not admit they do it for political reasons and ignore valuable posts of the same basis. If you tell me that then I will know then that there is no further point to try to discuss things with you and help this board in this way.

I am genuinely interested in a real discussion on this very important matter since now the DT is directly a merit dependant system. I have no idea why merit would equal trust anyway because it is allowing persons with a very short history here to be put into positions of trust where legends with years of observable history demonstrating no dishonest or untrustworthy actions is verifiable. I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.

These new systems are quite risky if you do not mind me saying. I have had legends and other old members tell me in pms (which you can probably see them) that they are scared to support some of my views because although they share some of them they are afraid of reprisals from the gangs that those systems have allowed to form. This is a clear clear illustration of free speech being crushed along the way.

This i say again is not a direct criticism of you personally other than to say the systems need some tweaks in my mind to prevent those things I have described happening. I think you should listen less to the suchmoon group and really investigate and consider the concerns of the opposing group here who only want a fair and equal system for all persons. Surely that is what you want to is it not?

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on. Also consider lowering earned merit too 150 and entering an activity of 1500 therefore the person has longer history to check against and has a more senior account to risk here from untrustworthy actions.





Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!