It absolutely is. theymos has complete authority over this forum; what he says goes. If he doesn't want something here, it won't be here. That is the definition of centralization.

You can't do what you want here, despite what it may seem like sometimes.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you explain?

That's pretty debatable. Low amounts of censorship is one of the best parts about Bitcoin and the internet as a whole, I disagree that it should mimic life AFK.

How would you suggest that we combat that?

Because, currently, it's the best way. Decentralized problems have problems with spam, among other things.

If you find a staff member who is moderating posts simply on whether he likes the person posting them then post about it or report it to a higher power. I can't imagine that they would stay moderator for much longer.

Similarly, if you see someone on DT using the trust system like that then report them in the Reputation section and they will likely be removed from the network.

When you say democratic principles, do you mean voting? If so, that would be easily abused by those who have troves of alt accounts.

---

There is a team still working on the new forum software coming Soon™. Only two years late.
You can suggest new ideas to be implemented in the New forum software board.

We have three admins. The number of active admins is debatable.

You press the 'Delete' button on any Bump posts you make before making a new one. The 'Delete' button can be found next to 'Quote' and 'Edit'.

AFAIK the 'evil' system is only put into place when registering accounts, not logging into them. Provided you register your account on an IP with no 'evil' then you shouldn't be affected.

No you're not. Archive.is is a genuine archival website; nothing there is fabricated. There is solid evidence of that thread existing and you having made it.
I would suggest that you leave this forum and not come back; you won't get any sympathy here.

Also, that 'hotshot' that you're arguing with is Staff and can still see the deleted thread if it is in the Trashcan. Trying to call them out on it is a stupid thing to do.

From what I understand this logic only works by calling everyone with a negative trust rating a scammer, which isn't how I think the trust system should be interprited.
A negative trust on the DT network is one person publicly distrusting someone else. That's it. It is a marker that someone on DT sees someone else as being untrustworthy, not that that person is a scammer.
Let's look over some examples:
Has Lauda scammed anyone? No. Has Lauda made some decisions that may be untrustworthy to others? Perhaps.
Did OgNasty scam anyone? No. Did he do things that could be seen as untrustworthy? Perhaps.
Same with Lutpin,
Same with TwitchySeal,
So on.
(I'm not endorsing any of the negative trusts against these people, but they are/were there and so used for examples).

Along with this, if no one on DT believes someone to be untrustworthy, they won't be tagged as such.
So in all of the examples shown above by moonpie and others, no one sees the users as untrustworthy. Due to this, they aren't tagged.
Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

Since Lauda and Lutpin haven't responded to the actual concern, I decided to answer for you.
I can't say why Lutpin or Lauda haven't responded to you, although I can guess that it's because you seem like nothing other than a whiny crybaby without common sense.

Then maybe you should ask ACE to not count that post towards my final count
I post here because I want to. I couldn't care if I got paid or not.

That's an invalid comparison; you're comparing two things that affect reputation differently. It wouldn't be alright to scam anyone regardless of reputation, as shown in many previous cases.

I don't believe that at all, I'm saying it is common sense to let someone off with a minor offense (if you can call it that, considering it depends on the person judging) if they have contributed a large amount to the forum.
There are many people with differing opinions on the DT network. If Lauda and Lutpin actually did something as bad as you (and the people that have strangely similar opinions and grammatical choices) like to make out, there would be nothing stopping others from either removing them from the network or countering their ratings.

And there is nothing stopping you from having those opinions, however there is a much simpler explanation that has already been said by myself and others.
That doesn't fit your agenda though, so I can see why you wouldn't accept it.

Most likely because the positive contributions to the forum outweigh the negatives.

Trading in accounts isn't bad enough that it rules out any contribution to the forum for those who are/were/tried to be a part of it. The reason the majority of the accounts dealing in accounts are being tagged as such, I expect, is due to them having little to no positive contribution to the forum.

0.02BTC

Good to know, apologies for your loss.

If you want to prevent people from replying to the topic you can press the 'Lock Topic' link in the bottom left hand corner of the page. I suggest you do this, else it will likely continue to be brought up.

You literally changed the word 'Password' to have some well known symbol replacements and added a p at the beginning. It wouldn't surprise me if these sorts of passwords were targeted specifically by some attackers.
A good password with alphanumerics and symbols would look similar to these:

• n<GV8YV/L&$K$[b
• 937/o=92sW/G{5c
• ~(=0,548_"2"/Ga
• kZs75Upu]48j?6q

Notice how none of those passwords follow any sort of structure/pattern? They do not resemble any dictionary words (unlike yours), they do not have any predictable characters in there (unlike yours) and alphanumerics and symbols are scattered randomly in each password (unlike yours).

None that you store funds on for that exact reason.
By storing funds on a website you are literally giving them your money. If they have poor security or get greedy there is absolutely nothing stopping them from running off or losing your money. That is something that could only have been helped by not storing funds on a website. Of course, I do not think that PD or Bustabit have a problem with either of these.

It is. An inherent problem that comes into play with almost every website that uses accounts with passwords.

You are trying to frame Stunna/PD for a problem that isn't their fault. It's disrespectful at best, and deserves an apology.
Not that anyone here should expect one from you; you seem too deluded by your own faulty logic to realize you have done anything wrong.

---

I suggest that you try to understand this; he is absolutely correct.

That password is insanely easy to guess. A machine could probably come up with that password in a few hundred tries.

Do you really think that passwords are brute-forced by hand? You really don't know much about this stuff, do you?

Regardless, did it not come to mind that if you're posting your password in a public place you should change it?

Because Stunna/PD has done nothing wrong. You accusing him of doing such is not fair. You lost the money because your account security was bad - deal with the loss and learn from it in the future.

You are the security loophole. Make a password that isn't stupidly easy for a machine to guess and you will no longer have these problems.

---

Any website you store funds on is dangerous for many reasons. Provided you trust the website and use a strong password this danger can be mitigated.

What would you suggest they did? Lock your account?

Because it's not the website's responsibility to make sure the user has good password security. I trust that PD does all it can to secure user's passwords, although it cannot do everything.
It also isn't a loophole, it's logic. If your password is 'password123' people will guess it easily. That's not a problem with PrimeDice, it's a problem with you.

And what about if a user has a dynamic IP? Should they just get locked out of their own account?

If you're telling the truth and it is a completely unique password it won't matter.

Captchas can be bypassed by bots through the use of external services. If a person knew that you had a weak password and enough balance to make it worth their time the captcha wouldn't be an issue.

Not at all. Depending on how fast PD loads he could have tried it hundreds/thousands of times in that 10 minute period. If there is rate limiting it could be less, however that could possibly be bypassed unless it was applied per account.
Either way, it would be significantly more than 3 or 4 attempts in that time frame.

The topic was started because Lauda left negative trust on an account in that user's possession. Therefore, to begin with this does not fit the criteria that I asked for.
In addition, I believe that your timeline is incorrect. The topic was changed to 'WITHDRAWN' which then resulted in Lauda removing their feedback, as there was nothing there to base it on.

Once again, this doesn't fit the criteria. It also seems that this was sorted similarly to their first dealing with defcon, by an external party coming in and mediating. Is this not the way that trust disputes are meant to be solved, or is it just because Lauda is Lauda?

defcon and Lauda have had disputes several times over several different things, which would explain the trust ratings being changed multiple times. However, as far as I remember the majority of these disputes (including the first and latest) were to do with trust feedback left by Lauda, making it once again invalid to the criteria I asked for.

So you have managed to provide one instance where a dispute with Lauda wasn't about trust feedback sent by them (despite me asking for instances where this wasn't the case), said instance being already resolved by Lauda admitting they were in the wrong. Do you have anything else?

They are? Prior to them being added to the DT network and leaving trust ratings there was little criticism about them IIRC, the majority only coming from yourself and alt accounts with a strangely similar writing style to you.
It may be my memory, though could you provide some examples as to when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback that was solved by sent feedback from Lauda being removed?

Because in QS land only certain people are allowed to resolve trust issues through communication - as they are meant to be. Others must keep them there permanently else they are obviously attempting to censor those critical of them.
Unfortunately for them, Lauda falls into the second group.

True, however currently this is not the case:

Taken from xetsr's trust page viewed at DT2.
This also does not take into accounts tagged by him that had positive trust originally; leaving them with a score other than -2: -1 / +0 or other such exceptions.

If another DT member took the time to go through, verify and duplicate each of these I doubt there would be any scruples with removing him from the DT network. However, considering no action is being taken against him currently, that would simply be wasted effort.

That won't be very accurate; if a user is on several user's trust lists they will be listed multiple times (and even again if that user then has a user already on the DT network on their trust list and so on).
The best way would probably be to make a script that would check for duplicates and count each individual, I can make one if needed.

Leaving a feedback simply shows if you publicly trust or distrust someone. This is essentially for nothing other than vanity.
To actually see feedback left by a user that you trust you must add them to your trust list. This means that you trust their feedback and would like to see it by default in the 'Trusted Feedback' section of user's trust pages.

---

Why? That wouldn't help anyone but the scammers that he tagged.

Regardless of who supplied the money for the jackpot, it was Betcoin that advertised such reward and therefore Betcoin's responsibility. Betcoin failed to deliver this reward, and therefore should not be trusted to deliver on any other reward. This rightfully shows in their feedback.
In addition, there are many more things wrong with Betcoin than just the jackpot issue. As a company, they are extremely shady at best.

I don't think anyone will disagree that Betcoin's signature campaign is ran well in terms of payment, however it should still be marked red simply for it's trust.