|
I will create a flag in a few hours. I lost money due to the inputs.io hack.
|
|
|
|
|
Feedback is not moderated and cannot be removed (besides by the person who left it).
|
|
|
|
Word spaghetti
Have you actually clicked any of the links in the OP? I have not shared my personal opinion about Bitcoin Cash nor has it anything to do with it. Roger Ver is intentionally promoting an altcoin as Bitcoin, which causes people to lose money. Feel free to point out which of the evidence I have provided is false or out of context and I will happily redact it. |
|
|
|
Red trust was sufficient for everyone up until a few hours ago - the only thing which has changed with leaving red trust is the removal of red "Trade with extreme caution" text.
Wrong. The warning above threads started by such users is also gone. Those two things combined make them worthless. No, only you are worthless, actually of negative worth. You are responsible for breaking the old system so quite crying, your abuse fucked it up. That warning was presented above many honest members initial posts due to your attempts to conceal you had previously lied and scammed. It was therefore already misleading and of low to negative over all value. You broke it. Theymos is fixing it with the new transparent and fair system. People will soon flag down all the REAL SCAMMERS. Hopefully you will be included. You seem to be of the opinion that because you gave out a lot of red tags that people assumed you were net positive. The smarter ones could see that you have done far more damage here than you have good. Just fuck off and let the board fix your mess. Since Theymos "fixed" the "broken" system, maybe you can start posting from your main account now? |
|
|
|
I think it should be allowed to open a scammer flag against someone without personally being a victim if: - Victims have actually been scammed/lost money
- The accusation contains enough factual evidence
Perhaps a rule could be added that a scam accusation needs to receive an x amount of merit before being able to add a scammer flag while not being a victim, showing that accusation has received enough support from the community. EDIT: An accusation like this: |
|
|
|
I have PMed Theymos to ask for clarification. It feels wrong not being able to support a flag like this. |
|
|
|
Here is roughly what I had in mind:  Seems like a great change. Just a '#' makes no sense imo. It's not clear what '#' means, especially not for new users who haven't learned about the trust/flag system yet. |
|
|
|
I'd gladly risk a blacklist over this, but the problem is that nobody is allowed to support it without risking blacklisting themselves. The system actually de-incentivizes supporting any accusations, which makes no sense. Theymos stated: Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
It seems that it is fine to support a flag, as long as the accusation is based on clear fact-statements and doesn't contain false accusations. |
|
|
|
Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?
Yes. You can only leave the weakest-type flag if you weren't harmed personally. Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?
Correct. I understand what Theymos is trying to do with the flag system but not being able to an obvious scammer, and supplying supporting evidence, who caused people to lose money is odd. EDIT: Can we try to not derail this topic with personal accusations? Please let's keep this about the flags in general. |
|
|
|
@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question? |
|
|
|
What happened: Roger Ver/Memorydealers has been defrauding people into buying an altcoin for years. He is intentionally promoting an altcoin, Bitcoin Cash (BCH), as Bitcoin which causes people to lose money. Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10310I will continue to update this OP. Please post below if you want anything added (please include reference links). |
|
|
|
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam. |
|
|
|
In (coming?) the world wide adoption path all other Banks (except Carlton) will prefere the more transparent blockchains - so all tainted and on purpose more ano chains will be dismissed from that path.
You obviously do not know your audience. No need to reply to his post. He's a BSV shill. |
|
|
|
I always admire users that has done good for the forum. There are only few here and most of them are active as DT's. Pretty sure that with these users the forum will keep away from scammers or it could evenly eradicate the possible scam especially in the marketplace section.
Thank you for your generic signature campaign contribution. |
|
|
|
I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc. Theymos wants to (more or less) decentralize DT1. By looking at trust and inclusions, the list would be mostly the same each month. It's not ideal, but this at least gives more different users a chance to reach DT1.I think trust level should be one of the main requirements for being DT(1). There are now several users in DT1 with a neutral trust level and no notable untrusted feedback, which is strange imo. Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!. I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members. Yeah, I figured that. I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc. I agree. Should definitely be based on rank of eligibility if capped at 100 members. Random just means peoples' trust ratings could fluctuate pretty intensely from month to month... Whatever, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.Yeah true, I don't mind Theymos trying out several things to figure out what the best option is. I don't envy him for having to create a trust system  . |
|
|
|
Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!. I don't think anything changed: DT1 is selected in the same way, then reduced to 100 members. Yeah, I figured that. I think it's an odd choice to randomly select them instead of looking at trust level, in/exclusions etc. |
|
|
|
Stuff like this shows how the quality of the system is gradually going down.  Wait, I'm not in that list anymore.  Hopefully that will stop certain people from creating new threads every day and filling them with random accusations and lies. |
|
|
|
Yeah I saw that post but it doesn't mention anything about new requirements, besides randomly selecting 100 users?!. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
