You don't have to trade with someone to tag him for scamming on his trade.
If the facts are presented, you should tag everyone who has scammed anyone.
If you check my sent feedback, you'll see I did the same.
I would agree suspicion about someone could be worthy of a tag if you allow the user a way out. The if is important. It would be extremely harmful to tag people without allowing them to prove they're legit.
Example: "Sells iPhone X with no pics. Will remove as soon as a picture is sent".



You're again missconstruing what was said here.


I'm of the opinion that at least 70% of the signature campaign didn't even know what an InvestBox was.
I sure as hell didn't. Tagging YoBit would be sufficient without tagging innocent users.


My argument is that they most likely didn't even know an InvestBox existed.


Sure. I can agree that is a morally valid opinion. However, I would not agree it's worth a negative trust.
As I said, I believe most of the people who participated in these campaigns had no idea what an InvestBox was or that it even existed.
How can we tag them as untrustworthy if they didn't even know?

I mean there are people on this forum that just participate in campaigns, giveaways, faucets, etc. etc.
There are certainly some that don't even know what a ponzi is.
How can we label them as untrustworthy?

Exactly. That's the purpose of discussion. We certainly have different viewpoints at this moment but I see no reason why we would despise one another.
I'm open to have my mind changed.


Banning users is the business of the administration, not of the Trust system.
I would definitely object if there's no proof the website is linked to the poster, it would be an unjust ban since he could easily be posting a link without knowing about the malware.
But the equivalent is a bit different. There is much more harm in infecting someones computer (removal of free will) than it is in accessing a website (absolute free will).


YoBit was never an acknowledged or undisputed scam. I have never encountered any scam accusations from their users at all.
It was not and is not widely known. Red tagging people who knew nothing about you claiming they're a scam is wrong in my head, yes.
Most of these people are probably honest people.



We're talking about the judicial system where terms of written contracts are determined by lawyers according to the current laws and the constitution.

0 of that exists here. There are no laws, there are no lawyers, there is no constitution, there is no one to appeal to.
There is only mob rule.


Thinking the Earth is flat doesn't change it being round.
Thinking wearing YoBits signature is promoting scams doesn't change that those people didn't knowinglly damage anyone.

You're missing the argument again.
No one here is arguing YoBit isn't a scam.

Dis/Agreement and facts are not the same.

ISS pictures, lunar eclipses, sunsets, time zones are proving the round Earth a fact.
Agreeing or disagreeing changes nothing. Just like trades.

The same is with the nutildahs posted malware. If the file is ran through virustotal and comes up as a virus on 10/10 AVs, it's no longer an opinion that it's malware.

If someone denies a 1000BTC withdrawal, and it can be verified, it becomes fact that they damaged their users.

If a user wears a signature in order to earn some mBTC he didn't scam anyone.
There is no proof in him damaging any users at all.

It is purely your opinion that him participating in a signature campaign can be potentially harmful.


Keyword is knowingly.

As I said, I would not have worn the signature had I read more about it.
But you can see why I see this as potentially harmful.

You're again missing the argument.
It's not about the signature itself.
Some of us obviously agree to disagree about the signature being worthy of a tag.
That proves it's an opinion and not a fact.
It's about the trust system becoming opinion-based versus the only credible trustworthy unbiased metric of trades.
We can agree to disagree, and I will not engage the discussion further, but stop misinterpreting words that are posted here.


Now, this is a legit argument.
I thank you for this nutildah.
This is how people decide things and not by twisting words and changing narratives.

Outcomes differentiate a fact from an opinion.
How can you tell the wallet is malware-laced? If you ran it through virustotal.com, it's no longer an opinion.
It's a fact.


I'm obviously not pursuing my self-interest here, the only thing I can earn here is probably a red tag.
But I'm pursuing the interest of the community as a whole.
As I said if I consider myself a moral person what can I think other than this action being wrong and harmful?
If I was tagged, how can possibly someone with no proof behind him to prove his credibility defend against this allegations?

I didn't want to engage in more discussion about this, but I wanted to react to misinterpretation of Techshares words.



Who said there's no difference between them and who said YoBit isn't a scam?

Someone here used non sequitur, which is pretty much what's happening here.
His point wasn't that Yobit isn't a scam, nor that ChipMixer is a scam.
His point was if you label someone a scammer based on your opinion, it will inevtibaly lead to degradation of the Trust system.
Tagging the website owner if there's proof is legitimate. Tagging random user who participated in their signature campaign isn't.
I believe that's his point. Not saying YoBit isn't a scam or that ChipMixer is a scam.


If I know I would never scam anyone and I'm tagged as a scammer, what is it left for me to believe other than thinking the policy is wrong?

The base of his argument was that it was an opinion.
You believe YoBit is a scam because their coin won't have value and tag people who wear their signatures.
If someone thinks mixers exist to launder money for scammers he's righteous to red tag people wearing their signatures.
You can disagree the same as we do now.
If you can tag based on your opinion, why can't everyone?
Trade isn't an opinion.
You either scam someone, or you don't.

This is probably the most well-intended post in this thread.
Stands like this can easily result in account destruction.

I will admit I am taking a more defensive stand than I usually would.
I am very much against ponzies, I have written extensive posts on this forum about the pension plan which is clearly a ponzi and where so many young people are going to lose their money. This isn't a ponzi, it's an inflationary coin (like our FIAT, except this one is voluntary) and for that reason I have removed the signature.

I didn't research into YoBit at all because I have believed it's not my job to do so for reasons I outlined above.
If I thought they were a scam I would have removed the signature much earlier. I didn't.
I will retreat now for my own good.

You missunderstood something.
I corrected your statement that I'm sending PMs about the thread.
I have sent a PM. The one you have posted in reply #40.


No, you ARE wrong.
YoBit has purchased ads on Google, so by your definition Google is a scammer.
Are you going to stop using Google?
You're a hypocrite if you continue using Google after they promoted a ponzi! By your definition.
That's why your definition is wrong.
Website promotion and advertisement sale are not the same thing.


Steal? I don't think they take control of your wallet and deposit the funds into their website.
It's the users who decide whether or not deposit their money there willingly.

If you deposit money onto a website simply because it claims you're going to earn x10 you deserve to lose money. You really do.
Every sane person googles a website before he invests in it. If you haven't done that, I've got nothing to say.
You'll have a lot more problems in life when ICOs come up which aren't as open about their "x10".


I volunteer in the Red Cross, I have monthly subscriptions to charities, I handled a million dollars as escrow at ONCE and tens of thousands at other deals and haven't scammed anyone.
And you call me out on my morals? They're not in question.

Where is your feeling of empathy?
You are the one negging poor members of this community who are perhaps struggling with their everyday lives just because you want to earn some brownie points from the community. Some people are really helped out by this signature payments.


My dignity is not in question.
You think people see signatures that say "Invest for x10" and then deposit bitcoins instantly?
The same thing works with our FIAT currency which is x1.03/year and it isn't voluntary.

*has sent a PM
That's all I wanted to post.
This sort of self righteous bullying all over the forum needs to stop.




The Trust system is made to let you know who you're safe trading with and who you're not.
You agreed I would be more trustworthy than 99.9% of the forum. Isn't that an abuse of the trust system then?

Sale of ad-space and promotion are not the same thing.
Does any sane person in the world accuse PornHub for being scammers if they allow ads that run 'hot singles in your area' and 'enlarge your dick 50cm today'?
It's the vistors that decide which ads they open and which products they purchase.
Not those that sell advertisement space.
The same is even more true here.
It's the investors job to investigate what he invests in.
It's devious to mark these people as scammers simply because they joined a signature campaign.

I have been warned yes, but I'm a busy person, I can't dwell into things as soon as I'm notified about them
http://prntscr.com/qtb9x1

I wasn't in my apartment for those 2 days since I slept at my ex's place, which can be seen from my post history as well
http://prntscr.com/qtbaee


When I woke up in my own bed I took the time to research the subject and left the campaign.

I don't see how an arbitrary 24 hour period would make any moral difference?
Would I be more moral if somehow an iPhone charger was present there for those 2 days?
Or am I less moral because my battery was dead?


I believe this is completely disingenuous and malicious.
The purpose of the trust system is to know who you can trade with and who you can't trade with.
You know full-well I'm a trustworthy person, but why you decide to abuse the system in order to carry your own vendetta is beyond me.



http://prntscr.com/qtbvlk

At XMR peak of 480$, the depository had more than 2000 XMR
Which is over a million dollars

I've been the escrow for these Monero for some 4 years now.
It's currently ~70k$, but at its peak I handled a million $ worth of anonymous cryptocurrency

And you seriously believe now that I'm an untrustworthy person because I wasn't able to research the subject the same day you sent me the PM?

Koji dio od zero-knowledge nisi razumio?
Mogu server objaviti javno i svejedno nitko ne može do tvojih šifri.


Dakle patchirano u 2 tjedna. Nikakav problem.


Koji argument! Pa, ovi ostali ni nemaju add-on!

Uklonjen je slučajno na 2 dana, s tim da si mogao pristupiti svim informacijama kroz već instalirani add-on, aplikaciju na mobitelu i naposljetku na njihovoj stranici na internetu.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lastpass-free-password-ma/hdokiejnpimakedhajhdlcegeplioahd?hl=hr

Baš je friška vijest, skineš si ga odmah

Hashcat i KeeFarce neću spominjati iz drugih razloga ali nije ni KeePass nevin
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/06/keepass-vulnerability-lets-attackers-steal-passwords-but-dont-expect-it-to-be-patched/

That's not precisely correct.
I have been warned yes, but I'm a busy person, I can't dwell into it right away
http://prntscr.com/qtb9x1

I haven't been at my laptop for 2 days prior to that, which can be seen from my post history as well
http://prntscr.com/qtbaee

I wasn't in my apartment and my phone battery was dead
I did check it yesterday and left the campaign

I don't see how an arbitrary 24 hour period would make any moral difference
Am I more moral if I left it now than I would be if my phone was charged?

Drsko je samo to što se praviš pametan a pišeš gluposti.
Da si pročitao to što si objavio vidio bi ovo




Ne znam zašto si linkao 6 članaka koji govore o ukupno 2 događaja, ali dobro. Možda se čini kao više?

Naravno da nisam obraćao pozornost jer sam znao da su moje šifre sigurne.
Valjda je bitnije biti pametan online nego stvarno pročitati kako LastPass funkcionira?
Da si pročitao znao bi za ovu evidentu istinu

LastPass koristi zero-knowledge odnosno nikad ne saznaju našu šifre i naše šifre se ne mogu otkriti sa njihovog servera i ako ga daju javno na uvid.

Sve što si objavio nije relevantno danas, popravljeno je prije najmanje 3 godine i nema veze s njihovim serverom na kojem se do šifre ne može doći ni ako se javno objavi.

Pa da ponovim svoje pitanje iz zadnjeg posta
Koje su to šifre provaljene?

Baš je zgodno na KeePassu i ostalima nakon svake nove šifre raditi backup za slučaj ako ti se sruše Windowsi, pokvari laptop ili ga netko ukrade

Username: iluvbitcoins
Post Count: 4920
BTC Address (must be SegWit): bc1qqx3gkd7tnpwvcz3nkpf8te0l2j23ywu64jx9dl

Koje su to šifre provaljene?
Moje nisu, nisam vidio da su tuđe, niti je to moguće

Yes, apparently gun control in the media boosts gun sales.
https://www.futurity.org/gun-sales-gun-control-coverage-2089772/

Intersting thing to note is that in the UK, 59% of burglaries are made while the residents are inside their home
In the US, that number is 13%.

Nisam proučavao previše no pošto su informacije enkriptirane dobrom šifrom mogu provaliti koliko hoću, naše šifre su sigurne.
A iz tog razloga imam sinkronizirano iste šifre na laptopu i na mobitelu


Stranice se hakiraju i ako ne štite šifre dovoljno dobro dođe do leaka tvoje jedne šifre i emaila koji se tad isprobava za sve moguće stranice.
Password manager generira nepovezane šifre za svaku stranicu pa i ako jedna bude hakirana, hakeri će s njom moći pristupiti samo jednoj stranici.
Za pretpostaviti je da password manageri jako dobro osiguravaju sigurnost privatnih podataka.

It could also be that these socialists purchase gun company stocks before these policies.
Every time a policy like that is proposed, gun sales skyrocket and so do gun stocks.

Ja koristim LastPass i dosta je straightforward, nemam nikakvih problema s njime pa ga preporučujem
Bolji mi je od KeePassa jer ima automatsko dodavanje passworda u browseru kada se registriraš negdje i sinkronizira se i na tvom mobitelu.

Ovakva situacija će i stvoriti naciste ako se nastavi u smjeru u kojem idemo.



Postalo je jasno u mnogim zapadnim zemljama da ekstremna ljevica mrzi bijelce. "White people are cancer" "Colonists" etc. Dosta se očitovalo kroz "It's okay to be white" kampanju.
Ljudi su počeli lijepiti A4 papire na kojima je pisalo "It's okay to be white" da bi iduće dane počela medijska kampanja o nacistima koji lijepe poruke bijelačke supermacije.
To znači da establishment smatra da nije u redu biti bijel? A prozivanjem svega, apsolutno svega s čime se ne slažu nacizmom,fašizmom i bijelom supremacijom će istrošiti te riječi i one više neće imati značenje dok će toliki uvoz ljudi i diskriminacija prema bijelcima stvarno početi stvarati ljude koji će se identificirati kao nacisti, fašisti i bijeli supremacisti.
O trošenju tih riječi dovoljno govori da je konzervativni homoseksualni Židov kojemu je zaručnik crnac Milo Yiannopoulos redovno u medijima razvlačen kao nacist, bijeli supremacist i alt-righter.
Kada se na ulici neke ljude ispitivalo što misle o tome, jasno su govorili da misle da su oni koji lijepe papire rasisti i kako "obrnuti rasizam" ne postoji. Misleći na to da se ne može biti rasist prema bijelcima.

Na fakultetima se uvodi "Affirmative action" prema kojoj se opravdava rasna diskriminacija na upisima. Bijelci moraju imati 30ak% bolje rezultate od crnaca da bi upisali fakultet. Azijati gotovo duplo. Najgora stvar oko toga mi je kada gledam komunikaciju sa ljudima koji to podržavaju.
Njima je sasvim svejedno što je to diskriminacija, po njima je to "pozitivna" diskriminacija. Negativna diskrimacija može biti samo prema njima.
Jedini argument koji relativno prihvaćaju je da su i Azijati manjina i da nije u redu da Azijatske žene moraju imati više bodova od bijelih muškaraca.
Što potpuno oslikava današnju zapadnu ljevicu.
Razlike između lijevog i desnog su veće nego ikad.



Sa ovakvom kulturom u kojoj je popularno "bashanje" bijelaca i rastući brojevi manjina koje se radikaliziraju u tim echo-chamberima anti-white ljevice, pitanje je kako će bijelci završiti ako postanu manjina. Možda kao u Zimbabveu?

Mada sam sad s ovim replyom ušao u potpuno drugu temu za koju bi mi trebao još jedan ovakav reply da je argumentiram dovoljno dobro  


Dakle slažeš se da trebamo spriječiti ilegalne migracije i paziti koga uvozimo legalno?


Moraš uzeti u obzir i uvoz ljudi.
Nedavno smo imali taj Marakeški sporazum u kojem je Kolinda potpisala da je imigracija temeljno ljudsko pravo (i većina UNa).
Prema tome ljudi bi mogli i ekonomski migrirati bez ikakvih restrikcija, mada sumnjam da će se to brzo ostvariti.
Izuzev toga..
Mislite da je ovo zadnji rat na Bliskom Istoku? Mislite da ih neće biti više?
Novi rat znači nove azile i nove migracije.


Mislim da bi to moglo biti istina kada se ne bi događala ta getoizacija tih doseljenika. Da se naseljavaju u područja sa lokalcima i odrastaju/žive s njima vjerovatno bi se integrirali i asimilirali kroz par generacija, no stvar je u tome što naseljavaju četvrti koje su nasljene isključivo s pripadnicima jedne rase i mislim da to nije "mi-vi" problem nego je razlog jednostavna lakoća života. Ako ne znaš jezik, lakše ćeš se snaći tamo gdje možeš komunicirati s ljudima.
Pitanje je kako će se netko asimilirati kroz par generacija ako odrasta i živi isključivo s ljudima svoje narodnosti
Imamo takav primjer i kod nas, npr. Janjevo u Kosovu. Dubrovčani su došli u Janjevo u 14. stoljeću, i nigdje dalje u Albaniji nema hrvatskih mjesta, no do dan danas su se ti Hrvati tamo očuvali jer su generacijama živjeli i odrastali sa članovima svoje narodnosti.
Kako će se asimilirati ljudi koji odrastaju većinom sa muslimanima, idu u školu sa muslimanima, i žive sa muslimanima?


Moje isprike.

Nisam rekao da je to loše. Štoviše, za lokalce je to dobro jer sigurno ne žele getoizaciju različitih narodnosti.
Asimilacija je ključan proces za narode koji uvoze radnu snagu.
Mada mislim da od nas nikada ne bi ni mogli imati problema, jer smo premali i kulturološko preslični narodi.

Ponoviti ću još jednom.
Svakog čovjeka treba cijeniti kao individuu i nikako ga ne treba osuđivati prema grupi. Svi smo se rodili kao 'nešto' i to 'nešto' nije naša slobodna volja i samim time nas se ne može osuđivati za nešto što nismo birali.


Radi hipoteze ne bih riskirao uvoz potencijalnih samoubilačkih napadača. Ipak se radi o životima naših ljudi.
Ukoliko se provede neko istraživanje koje će potkrijepiti ovu tezu onda bih mogao razgovarati o njoj.
Ne gubimo puno ako sam u krivu, a gubimo jako puno ako sam nažalost u pravu.


To je opet hipoteza. Ne znam koji je razlog, i ne znam kako se to može testirati. No, naslućujem da je to radi jednostavne lakoće. Lakše se nastaniti s ljudima koji znaju tvoj jezik nego sa strancima. Možda već nekoga i poznaš tko se doselio iz tvoje zemlje itd.
Činjenica je da se osnivaju geta i da mnogo migranata živi tamo gdje su 'njihovi' te da te četvrti bujaju kriminalom.


Trebalo bi uvesti da se može opt-outat od mirovine. Jednostavno ne uplaćuješ - i nemaš mirovinu.
Odnosno dobiješ novac na ruke pa si ili sam uplaćuješ u takav neki fond, investiraš negdje ili čak spremaš u čarapu.


Hvala


Imaš li možda neki primjer?


Ne da nemaju granice, nego ih proširuju i osvajaju
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Imaš i par dokumentaraca  
Rat u Gombeu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLn9GwHoUy0
Ngogo rat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQn1-mLkIHw
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9035618/

Ne bih ti preporučio da ilegalno pređeš njihovu granicu  

Vukovi imaju područja na kojima žive i love te ih brane jako agresivno od svih ostalih koji nisu članovi čopora.
Zato i imamo pse čuvare, koji nas smatraju dijelom čopora i ne daju drugim "čoporima" da se približe našem teritoriju ako nisu pravilno socijalizirani.
Samo googlaj "territorial animals". Svi brane neke svoje granice.
Pa, i većina medvjeđih napada nisu radi hrane nego radi teritorija, samo što medvjed nije čoporativna životinja kao npr. vukovi i čimpanze.


Ako je to istina i izvlačimo ljudi koji se protive tim stvarima, kako će se onda dogoditi promjena u njihovim državama?


Kad nema diskusije, ljudi lakše prihvaćaju netočne stvari kao točne, i onda na tim netočnim stvarima rade dodatne zaključke i na kraju izgrade narativ koji je od početka lažan Zato je diskusija jako bitna.


U tome i je stvar.
Ja ne želim tjerati nekoga da se asimilira, niti mislim da je dobro tjerati nekog na to. Prirodno je da svatko želi sačuvati svoju kulturu.
No, ako smatramo da je nemoralno tjerati nekoga na asimilaciju, a znamo da se oni sami vrlo vjerovatno neće asimilirati, što nam je raditi?
Zaustaviti uvoz.


Ovo je jako bezobrazno iz razloga što posljedice ne osjete oni koji su to započeli Bush, Clinton, Obama itd. nego ih osjete obični ljudi koji nemaju pojma o ničemu. Kada se dogodi katastrofa, sigurno stradaju i ljudi koji su protiv rata.