Lauda's Trust summary doesn't load anymore. Did sending trust 4439 times and receiving an unknown number or feedbacks tricker a time out somewhere? Where is my reward for breaking the forum? I think she ran out of users to tag
This part is indeed true. I'm lurking from the shadows until I have a reasonable amount to tag again.. meow. a dirty hack..
 |
|
|
|
Abusing bounty with alts.
But kind sir my friends and I use same exchange to lower fees.  I think it's totally abuse of power!
Yes indeed, and I'm the Supreme Leader of the Universe. |
|
|
|
I never seen any other DTs to react in the topic.
This is pretty much almost always irrelevant unless there are DTs involved in the thread and/or there is objective evidence that shows that your tag is unwarranted. |
|
|
|
Nicely done as always. Gotta get a spreadsheet overview of all your accusation threads, or a nice over-time chart.  Tagged. |
|
|
|
Switch out all images with pictures of cats. |
|
|
|
Can you add another list in which users that have higher ranks/merits would be listed first? That would help a bit going through all of it. But unfortunately proofs are not solid enough.
I beg to differ. |
|
|
|
|
This thread wouldn't exist without those new negatives that you've gotten. Nothing is broken, sort-of.
|
|
|
|
- The lender left him a positive rating
Maybe the lender likes trust farming. Oh wait, I'm talking about almost the whole lending section here. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
Maybe he/she celebrates mar 17 for an entire week!
You're onto something here. Certainly not done yet.  |
|
|
|
|
Finally, took way too long.
|
|
|
|
... I think we need more careful about detect alt account, we shouldn't tag someone by suspicion only (IMO). Transaction made on each other also not strong proof of alt account. We can exchange something each others, so it would not consider alt account also.
I have said the same thing several times on the "Known Alts" thread... Just because one or more ETH addresses send tokens to another ETH address, does not make them all Alts... but no-one listens, they're already off on their witch hunt "crusade" to rid the forum of alts "abusing campaigns" How many times was this conclusion wrong in comparison to the times it was right? Right. Quite disappointed by the meriters who think this is the right way to do things. |
|
|
|
How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?
Meh. Albeit with less stink of implied corruption. I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem. That could be it. I could see it as a legitimate attempt at getting reviews from a user group where alts are least likely to be present. |
|
|
|
I've been always telling that this system does more harm than good
Which is you spreading false information. You are absolutely not harmed in any way from this case. The answer to this question has already been given in the thread. In fact, it is given in the OP itself. Just in case, I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did
No. |
|
|
|
I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.
Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF." Seriously, there is no reason to want default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc. Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too. How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits? |
|
|
|
You sent 600 negative ratings in under 24 hours (closer to 22 hours)....just to have the most number of ratings sent? That works out to one every ~2.2 minutes assuming you were working the entire 22 hours with no breaks.
I can’t imagine you possibly did enough research to confirm each of those people are in fact scammers in that time. It seems to me that you just effectively excluded 600 people from participating in the marketplace for no reason other than to have an “award” for having sent the most number of ratings.
Keep whining, that won't change the fact that my accuracy remains consistent. The number you quoted is low for what I can manage, I just ran out of your accounts to tag. Pathethic fool.  I was wondering if little badges would be useful, the same thing Theymos planned for the report system.
That may work if I were not #1 on the list, some trolls gotta complain. |
|
|
|
I deleted my feedback on eduffield's account in the spirit of not leaving retaliatory ratings.
Your rating was a counter-rating not a retaliatory one, unless I mixed up something here. |
|
|
|
This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin.
Well, I beg to differ, as do the markets... It was the first of its kind and often imitated. Whether or not it will survive the long haul remains to be seen, as with every single other cryptocurrency, but its been in the top 20 coins by market cap for several years. I reserve the term "shitcoin" for more bland coins than this with less real-world adoption. A good market is not proof of anything. Pretty much everything in top 100 is absolute and utter garbage (ETH, EOS, Tron, etc.). There's nothing to "differ". Either the tech is objectively good or it isn't, which in Dash's case it isn't. |
|
|
|
Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.
Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful. That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane. BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts. This is false. DASH is mostly a marketing scam with little to no actually valuable tech. Duffield knew what he was doing, there's no doubt there. Tagging him is possibly appropriate, but I never bothered to read up the thread of that shitcoin in recent times. It was a viable experiment, but now it is nothing more than a useless shitcoin. LOL. It looks like that I started a hot topic, that might long-last over weeks or months. Even if you exclude the trolls that get involved in most threads, you're touching on multiple hot subjects at the same time most notably "I know what a good coin is" beliefs. |
|
|
|
I merited the post because I thought that it was sarcasm, and I thought that no one could actually believe such dumb substance.. that is why I thought that it was so funny...
I've seen plenty of fools claim similar stuff so it's hard to tell whether it is sarcasm or not if you don't know the poster. LOL of course it was sarcasm! Good. The bamboozled are going to feel pretty cheated when they figure out that I'm just some nobody that got targeted because of my lifelong promotion of freedom and privacy technology. It's probably no accident that "hacking team" was sending out newsletter claiming that bitcoin could become an establishment threat if got improved privacy and then I become a number one target, complete with an over the top disinformation laden NYT hit piece, short after after I published a design and implementation of Confidential Transactions. Just some nobody, heh. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
