|
Thanks for another trade. No issues at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I need those US$450 PayPal. Please send to the same address we traded before (confirmed via PM)
and let me know your BTC address. I'll send the same amount at preev rate
|
|
|
|
~
So, if what you say is true: you failed providing the offered service (exchanging my coins) so you held my coins for over 150 hours and then charged me all the fees. After one hour of not being able to exchange the coins and seeing DOGE increased by over 10% you knew for sure the exchange was impossible. So why make me wait 149h more? Why ignore all my messages during that time? You were unprofessional enough to fail making the exchange; irresponsible enough to hold my coins and ignore my messages for almost one week; and dishonest enough to charge me every fee caused by your errors instead of covering the loses caused by you, without even mentioning the huge lost of profit (more than BTC1) you caused me. If what you say is not true (which I think is more probable): you saw DOGE increased a lot after the exchange so you decided to hold my coins for several days, sold my DOGE, kept the profit and sent my BTC back charging me every fee. If DOGE had gone down during those days I'm sure I would have received the DOGE instead of my BTC. We'll never know for sure whether you scammed me or whether you were simply unprofessional, irresponsible and dishonest. In any case I'll never use your services again and would recommend anyone else to do the same. Anyone interested can read more about this here. You should before deciding to use Changelly's services. |
|
|
|
This will ensure that every member will be able to review each and every flag that has been raised and take appropriate action [...]
Otherwise we have to PM other DT members every now and then just to get them to check a certain flag
I like this suggestion very much, especially for the quoted part and also because "preventive" flags ( Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.) can be too obvious to create a new thread on Scam Accusations. Up until now I left negative trust to those users using their own thread as reference and that was enough. Since that can't be done anymore (because those threads are almost always locked or self-moderated) then more threads with obvious reasons will have to be created. A sub-section would help in that sense. I'd like to see a "Flags" sub-section under Scam Accusations with different icons depending on what kind of flag that is and whether it has more support or opposition. |
|
|
|
You mean like calling me a liar over an over when you run out of arguments? Good show old chap.
I'm sure you know what I mean. Your senses insults here and on most of your posts against me and others. I'm not wasting more time with you. I should have stopped after your first lies. |
|
|
|
Funny, you completely ignore a giant detailed reply to each of your points then accuse me of avoiding replying to "main points". I didn't lie about anything, I explained myself using solid logic and replied to each of your points, point by point giving very specific alternatives. I am sorry if the hamster running the wheel in your brain has given up for the day and you have to resort to accusing me of lying and ignoring your arguments when I very clearly replied to each of them in an extremely detailed manner. Apparently your ego takes precedence over an intellectually honest discussion, but whats new? You go back to senseless insults as usual  I've clearly made my point on my previous posts of this thread. |
|
|
|
Great. I am glad I took the time to make a thoughtful, logical, point by point reply just for you to run away because you feel like you have run out of arguments. Good show. Instead you opt for baseless claims that I want to let scammers freely scam. Who is the liar? Some one call chicken little, the sky is falling again. I have come up with an alternative, it is in the wall of text above.
You seemed to have missed everything I said. Re-read my previous posts, especially this part: come up with an alternative to make things harder for them before they scam then we can't reach an agreement. You can begin with these cases for example. So you lie, avoid replying to main points, and accuse me of doing that?! Go away. |
|
|
|
~snip~ I feel I'm wasting my time with you. Bottom line is you're not going to convince me and several others to let scammers freely scam. So unless you come up with an alternative to make things harder for them before they scam then we can't reach an agreement. You can begin with these cases for example. |
|
|
|
The concept that preventative negative ratings will stop scamming is horse shit because it doesn't work, and is furthermore counterproductive as I explained not just because it is an opinion I don't agree with.
I does work, like in the example I gave. You agree that over utilization of negative ratings is an issue. Your solution to this issue boils down to: "The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse." This is not a solution, this is kind of like just asking and hoping people will do the right thing. That is not good enough. There needs to be a simple form of due process here such as requiring a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.
Yes, over utilization and abuse is wrong. I think we should be less tolerant when there's obvious instances of people leaving negative when there's clearly no attempt to scam. This will be hard indeed. Prohibiting preventive negative trust completely would be hard too. The system would need to change a lot. You gave an example of when a negative rating could serve as a warning to "prevent" a scam. There are a couple problems with your logic here. First of all when I say the rating needs to be used as either a penalty or a warning but not both, this is not just my opinion, it is a logistical fact, one that you already ceded. If there are TOO MANY negative ratings, people begin to ignore them totally and then they ALL become worthless. In this scenario you don't get your cake or get to eat it too, you get nothing but conflict, confusion, and more fraud. This is why I say it must be one or the other, but not both, because there is no limiting factor on leaving false or frivolous ratings, and as a result that signal noise will dominate.
The blue part is a lie. Do not lie. It represents a problem if too many negative ratings are left for insufficient reasons so they're diluted. We do agree on that point. You can't give arguments for one point ( excess of unjustified negative trust is wrong) and conclude something different ( preventive trust can't work). This, along with your lie, makes me want stop reading your posts. Now, back to topic, scam can be reduced, as in the clear example I gave. It's impossible to eliminate it completely but it can be reduced. The second problem with your logic of negative ratings preventing fraud before it happens is that fraud is like a flow of water. You never really stop it, you can only put up barriers to entry. Much like hacking, there is no such thing as an "unhackable" system, but only such high barriers to entry that it is not worth trying.
I agree in general with the bold parts. I don't think fraud or scamming in general can be stopped. I never said that. I think it can be reduced with preventive negative trust and other means. I absolutely disagree with the underlined part. Scam can be reduced and it is worth trying if we can reduce the number of people being scammed. Furthermore is the real issue that people can abuse this one little feature by locking/using self moderated threads, or that people are not spending the time to do their own due diligence before trading? Do you really think that people who don't even bother reading trust ratings (neutral ratings) can be protected from their own lax attitudes?
Yes, scammers can use a lot of tools, like the locking/self-moderated threads. That's why preventive negative trust is not the only thing we should do. We can ask things to change. This change, along with preventive negative trust, has proven to work reducing scams (not removing them completely of course). New users need to be taught to review a users trust history before trading, and training them to rely only on green and red numbers is literally just feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by building false confidence in a flawed system. If they are not taught this then that flow of fraud will just redirect to another vector to fleece people with lax attitudes making your preventative ratings totally useless in the end anyway.
If you have a better idea about how to teach them then post that instead of just attacking my idea with flawed arguments. I just hope it's not something in the lines "They deserve to be scammed" or "They will learn after the first scam" I am using logic and reason, much of which you agree with to demonstrate that preventative negative ratings are overall counter productive. Your argument largely consists of, "but no it does prevent scams, trust me".
No, exactly the oposite: I'm using clear examples where scams have been undoubtedly reduced by using preventive scams and other tools. You, on the other hand, have lied, have given arguments for one point to try and prove another one, have give weird comparisons that don't prove anything. So, no, the blue part here is a lie again. Do no lie. Again, even if this was correct, the counterproductive effects of this are far more detrimental than the benefits.
Again, don't try to prove one point giving arguments for another one. These counterproductive effects are not produced by leaving preventive negative trust when clear scam signals are present. They're the effect of leaving too many negative trust for other, poorly justified reasons. I think negative trust should be left only when: - Somebody has scammed.
- Somebody is clearly trying to scam and clear signals are present, but not necessarily irrefutable proof. These clear signals can easily be missed by someone else, for example because the signals can be seen only by registered users, are present on another thread, some experience is required to identify the signals. So leaving that negative trust can help others to see the signals and can reduce scam.
|
|
|
|
What people deserve is a useless metric. What is relevant is what is enforceable and logistically possible. I would remind you that ATTEMPTING a crime is still a crime, and if you can produce solid evidence of this attempt I have no issues with that.
Absolutely. Someone who tries to scam deserves negative trust and even (real) legal punishment. However I do take issue with the 4 lane highway of a subjective loophole that is just based on opinions and beliefs allowing for abuse of this system.
I would agree to that too. Something people always ignore is that too many frivolous ratings creates signal noise and allows actual fraud to be buried in the din. Not only that, no one ever addresses the security threat of users having the ability to extort trusted users with false ratings in order to force compliance and silence.
Again. I agree. I'm not sure if this is addressed to me. Read my previous post. I don't see how you'd think I disagree with this. In the end if you are saying we are going to prevent scamming with negative ratings, that is just horse shit.
No, it's not. Just because I try and use negative trust to reduce scamming and you think it should be used to punish it only doesn't mean what I'm saying is horse shit. The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't make that opinion shit. Negative ratings are simply a reaction AFTER THE FACT, and any attempt to leave preventative negative ratings without evidence is not only a fools errand, it creates tons of signal noise allowing real cons to blend in, opens numerous avenues for other abuses, and creates endless conflict that is destructive to the overall community cohesiveness here.
If it's abuse, then yes. If there are clear signals a user is trying to scam but not definitely proof then that negative trust can reduce scam. Any preventative warnings can be solved with warning threads and neutral ratings.
Not always. For example, a lot of non-registered users have been scammed by new accounts creating locked and/or self-moderated threads with links to auto-buy sites. Of course, they didn't deliver anything after being paid. Those non-registered users didn't see any warning threads or neutral ratings. That situation was improved a lot after the warning theymos added to threads created by users with negative trust. But of course that warning is shown only if those brand new users have negative trust. Clear scamming signals are there: they are brand new accounts, they lock and self-moderate their threads, they post links to auto-buy links, most of the times (but not always) they get feedback from other brand new accounts (posted on a locked thread). But there's no absolute proof they are trying to scam. Leaving negative trust to them did prevent a lot of scams. Before, more than half of threads on that section were of that kind and there were a lot of " I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts here, posted by newbies after registering. Now only a few threads of that kind are posted, a scammer who used that method (with brand new accounts) has said he's leaving the site and no more " I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts have been seen. So it's absurd to deny leaving preventing negative trust is usefull. The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse. The trust system can either be a warning or a penalty, not both at the same time, and there is no denying it is detrimental to a user's ability to trade when they receive negative ratings.
Yes, it can be both. And yes, it's more difficult to trade for someone with negative trust. That's exactly why scamming can be reduced with preventive negative trust. |
|
|
|
~snip~ I don't think it's necessary those 2 descriptions are exactly the opposite, but I see your point. What's the opposite of " You were scammed"? It would be " You were not scammed", but that's clearly not reason enough to leave positive trust. " You were not scammed after making a deal where the other person could have scam you" would be enough reason, and that's very similar to " had a successful trade". The opposite of " you strongly believe that this person is a scammer" would be " you strongly believe that this person is not a scammer" or " you don't think this person will scam, even if given the chance". I'd like that description for positive trust, but in practice I don't think it's very different than " You trust this person". So I don't think the description for negative trust should change. The description for the positive trust could change; I consider that less important. This is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating.
So you think only people who have already scammed deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree. I think trust should be used to make things harder for people who are trying to scam too. Unfortunately that is subjective, but I don't see a better option. |
|
|
|
|
I think people should leave negative trust only to users who scammed or when they strongly believe that person would scam if given the chance.
The inclusion of "strongly believe" gives enough room in my opinion. We should not leave negative trust if we don't honestly believe a person has scammed or will scam.
So I don't think the description should be changed to "You distrust this person" or similar.
|
|
|
|
I would recommend getting rid of jQuery though. You're already using querySelector in one spot so you can replace the jQuery stuff with plain DOM calls I think.
Thanks. I'll check that when I have some time |
|
|
|
I've realized this script didn't work when quoting from ' Show the last posts of this person' or when quoting a PM. The script has been updated to version 1.1 to fix this. If you prefer not to use it on personal messages, just remove this line: // @include https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;f=inbox;pmsg=*;quote;u=* (However it's completely safe as of course everything happens on your own browser. I'd appreciate if someone can audit the code) |
|
|
|
The "increase risked BTC to increase the strength" thing only applied for a brief period of time. It didn't work well, so I removed it. It has no effect on anything, and I will probably remove "risked BTC" entirely in the future.
I don't think that it's a big deal to put ridiculous values in that field, though probably you shouldn't. For reporting something second-hand, there's never been a standard, and as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want. Since it doesn't actually affect anything, it's basically the same to have riskedBTC=1 with a comment of "he stole BTC" as to just say in the comment "he stole 1 BTC".
Thanks for your input. I really think you should update the Marketplace trust to avoid further confusion, as requested. |
|
|
|
Interesting opinion. I've seen many a DT member counter a rating they did not agree with. In this case, I don't just disagree, I point it is wrong according to the forum rules.
Actually I agree with you I made a mistake. We just strongly disagree on how important we consider it. But you're right. I've updated my feedback and PM'd the other 2 DT users who made the same mistake. I generally agree with the trust EcuaMobi leaves, so I would prefer not to distrust him.
Thanks for that.
Edit: I'm glad to see this worked out and Vod removed the negative counter. |
|
|
|
He escrito un user script que ayuda a eliminar las citas ("quotes") múltiples al responder a alguien. Es molestoso dejar varias citas anidadas ( ejemplo), por lo que generalmente es necesario eliminar manualmente las citas anteriores. Este script lo hace automáticamente. Por ejemplo, al hacer click en "quote" aquí: 
el script elimina la cita más antigua y deja solo la última:  además, muestra 3 enlaces: "Full text" vuelve a mostrar el texto completo:  "Latest quote" deja solo la cita más reciente (opción por emisión). Mientras que "~snip~" deja la última cita pero elimina su contenido:  Estos botones reemplazan el contenido, por lo que deben ser usados antes de escribir nada para no perder el trabajo realizado. Cómo instalar: Demo: Esta captura gif fue tomada en un teléfono Android. Funciona igual que en un computador. Código fuente para revisión y edición: https://openuserjs.org/scripts/EcuaMobi/Quote_plus/source// ==UserScript==
// @name Quote plus
// @namespace ecuamobi
// @author EcuaMobi
// @include https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=*
// @require https://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.3.1.min.js
// @version 1.0
// @license MIT
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==
(() => {
var full_text = document.forms.postmodify.message.value;
var regex = /\[quote author/gi,
result, indices = [];
// Find second [quote]
var i = 0;
var start2 = 0;
var end2 = 0;
while ((result = regex.exec(full_text))) {
i++;
if (2 == i) {
start2 = result.index;
break;
}
}
regex = /\[\/quote\]/gi, result, indices = [];
var last = 0;
while ((result = regex.exec(full_text))) {
if (last > 0) {
end2 = last + 8;
}
last = result.index;
}
// Are there several quotes?
if (start2 == 0 || end2 == 0) {
// Abort
return;
}
// Get text to use for every option
var latest_quote = full_text.substr(0, start2).trim() + '\n' + full_text.substr(end2).trim() + '\n';
var snip_quote = full_text.substr(0, start2).trim() + '~snip~[/quote]\n';
full_text = full_text.trim() + '\n';
// By default use the latest quote. REPLACE THIS BY snip_quote OR REMOVE IF DESIRED
document.forms.postmodify.message.value = latest_quote;
// Add buttons to manually use full text, latest quote or snip
const $links = $("<span style='margin-left:35%'><a id='full_text' href='#'>Full text</a> | <a id='latest_quote' href='#'>Latest quote</a> | <a id='snip_quote' href='#'>~snip~</a></span>");
$links.insertAfter($("#postMoreOptions"));
$("#full_text").click((e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.forms.postmodify.message.value = full_text;
});
$("#latest_quote").click((e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.forms.postmodify.message.value = latest_quote;
});
$("#snip_quote").click((e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.forms.postmodify.message.value = snip_quote;
});
})();
: - El script no se activará si no hay citas anidadas
- Solo se activa con citas normales de la forma [ quote author=username link=.... No con citas simples (sin author o link)
- Podría comportarse de forma extraña si la cita no está al inicio, o si hay varias citas mezcladas con respuestas a esas citas. Aún estoy trabajando en eso
- Siempre revisa si el script funcionó correctamente, y haz clic en "Full text" de no ser así
Seguiré mejorando este script. Agradezco que publiquen sus comentarios en este thread (en español), o aquí, en inglés, que seguramente será actualizado más frecuentemente. |
|
|
|
You don't need anyone's cooperation. I can adjust/remove the feedback as needed. Just do what you feel is right. :)
Like I said, it's the same for me setting the risked amount to BTC50 or BTC0. I don't think that's important at all. And I doubt it would be an issue for Pamoldar or dbshck either. When there's a small disagreement in trust, something that can be fixed with a couple of messages, then I think it's worth asking for cooperation. I don't need anyone's cooperation but I think that can help in this case. I did what I feel is right but I feel updating the risked amount to BTC0 would be exactly as much right. I don't see him as ???. However if I'm not mistaken he would be shown like that if yours would be his first negative trust. I think you misread my previous post. I wish you just explicitly answered the questions I posted.
Can I ask why it deserves so much trust? When I took a test drive last year, they didn't put me in their commercials for returning the car. I had no choice as they knew who I was. Sure, if OG would have been able to convert the coin to $$ without red flags, he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life. That's hard with children.
He did what he had to - let's not make it so dramatic.
I absolutely agree. He did what he had to do. A lot of us would have done the same thing, but not everyone. However I don't think I'm getting dramatic about this. I'm just leaving positive trust on a forum. I'm not giving a medal or an award. I'm not even removing him from my distrust list as I still don't trust his judgment. That particular action deserves positive trust. Feel free to leave negative trust to him if you think other actions of him deserve negative trust but TBH I find it absurd you think that specific action deserves negative trust just because the risked amount is not 0. Please just ask us to update the risked amount if that's the only issue you find about this. Let's also remember he was paid very generously (6 BTC a year) to brag everywhere he had all this coin...
I partially agree. I think he was very lucky getting that treasurer position. He got the money and the opportunity to prove he'd return $4 million. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve positive trust. Again, it's just positive trust on a forum. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
