|
Just to throw out a counterpoint here, for what it's worth, I believe that usagi has imposed a ridiculously onerous condition on himself in the wind-down of the assets now listed on BTC-TC and that the trust being created to allow for the possible recovery of toxic debt should be of much shorter duration.
|
|
|
|
As some of you may know, there's a dispute going on between AfricanHunter and johnniewalker over a silver deal which didn't quite work out. It's pretty tedious, but what is really concerning is this claim by johnniewalker. Mods have agreed to block him from my future posts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131841.msg1425897#msg1425897I'd like to hear the justification for such an action by the mods given that johnniewalker could have placed AfricanHunter on ignore or the mods could have given AfricanHunter a time-out if they felt he was derailing threads in which his deal with johnniewalker wasn't relevant. Is this going to become a regular means of silencing criticism around here? |
|
|
|
Mods have agreed to block him from my future posts.
Seriously? You could have simply put him on ignore. |
|
|
|
Groundhog Day.
Can you state whether or not you support the contention that I should have valued the portfolio at liquidation prices? The contract stated that I would provide added value through analysis. The spreadsheet stated that all values were estimates and listed, in plaintext, the exact formula used to value. In the practice of fair market value, you are not supposed to value securities at liquidation prices. Therefore it is wrong to claim that is what I should have done. QED. This thread was supposed to be about the criteria for scammer accusations, not yet another pointless "is usagi a scammer" trainwreck. Right now it's just "same shit, different day" and to be perfectly honest you might as well close it because any pretence that it's about general principals and not all about usagi can no longer be maintained. |
|
|
|
|
I don't suppose we could end the "is usagi a scammer" derail (god knows there are already enough threads discussing that) and get back to talking about the scammer tag in general, whether it has any usefulness any more, under what circumstances it should be applied, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying that squall. Hope dank comes through for you soon.
|
|
|
|
Protecting the core client, the infrastructure and the protocol should have nothing whatsoever to do with endorsement of commercial enterprises. It sounds like you want to implement something along the lines of the Better Business Bureau or the Heart Foundation - the methods of endorsement used by both are deeply flawed. If a standards oversight organisation is formed - and I do believe that will ultimately happen - then it should only assess services against an objective set of standards. Customer feedback plays no role in such a process and would ultimately undermine the whole purpose of establishing standards in the first place. As a service you dont have to get that seal - but you will get less trust without one. The seal will not prevent businesses failing. What you've proposed would not evaluate the kind of information needed to assess the likelihood of a business going broke because its owners are incompetent, it's under-capitalised, it's expanding too quickly, or the hundreds of other reasons new businesses fail. In fact, if BF starts endorsing Bitcoin businesses and people lose money because they relied on that endorsement BF may well expose itself to legal liability. |
|
|
|
That's exactly what i thought.
It's the owners of those businesses you want to be forced/verified/whatever that are also board-members of the Foundation,
so what you ask for is, that they control and verify themselves.
Doesn't really make much sense to me.
Well, I see I have to explain people what is resposibility. Responsibility is an acknowledgement that all aftermaths of your doings were caused exactly by your doings. Person who takes resposibility inspires trust in people. If BS will give seals to anyone without resposibility - it will discredit itself as fundamental organization. If BS will give seals to services WITH resposibility, with asking them to keep standards and forcing them to keep them, asking them for faults - it will be the center of trust. I dont ask for centralization! I only ask to do this only with centralized services of Bitcoin - to be them subordinated to BS. This could bring trust, liquidity, stability and wide usage of Bitcoin in the world. There is absolutely nothing preventing existing Bitcoin services from forming a professional organisation which requires its members to adhere to specific standards on a whole range of issues. It should never be the role of Bitcoin Foundation to endorse individual services, although it should probably play a role in facilitating discussion about central issues affecting Bitcoin including desirable security standards and perhaps publish discussion papers on those issues from time to time. Apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to play a standards oversight role without charging a fee to evaluate organisations for endorsement - you need qualified people to evaluate those applications and to assess whether organisations are actually complying with standards as they claim. BF really isn't the appropriate body to do that given the composition of its board. Likewise, the endorsement becomes absolutely meaningless the minute that an organisation which has been endorsed fails - and that will happen because the majority of new business ventures do fail. An endorsement isn't going to help people get their money back - it may well lull people into a false sense of security, though. You'll get responsibility when there are real world consequences for losing other people's funds - something a "tick of approval" can't address. |
|
|
|
Bottom line - it isn't as simple as you claim. And it's impossible to give guidelines without information about what categories of behaviour warrant a tag (which most definitely gos way beyond just scammers - and doesn't actually include all scammers for that matter.). There's detailed flaws in some of your points as well - but no point arguing detail when the area covered hasn't even been defined.
I think we are going to grow out of this forum soon. Maybe it sounds crazy but I don't see how the forum can continue on like this for much longer. I see the signs. Before that happens I'd like to see a serious attempt at cleaning it up and moderating it properly. A panel of judges known for their fairness and equitable judgements would be a very nice start. If we don't get better judges, I am guessing the community will begin to move towards dumping the (useless?) scam accusation forum and use real-world lawyers. Mods are biased, sometimes extremely so, and don't even see it as their job to be fair or even look at the scam accusation forum at all. It's pretty obvious that they only handle things which they are interested in or which affect them. I also see the community getting too big and diversified to rely on a single forum on a single bb system to handle the entire community's scam problems. No one remembers any of the small time scammers from 6 months ago. I guess I am just asking, is this really an effective system? How can we improve it? I don't think it's crazy at all. For many of the most egregious scams real-world lawyers and real world courts are the most appropriate remedy and the scammer tag is pretty meaningless as those involved don't give a shit about being labelled a scammer on a messageboard and such a label in no way helps victims. There are already Bitcoin specific and real world mediation options available to people but people lack confidence in using them and there's no way to compel people to use them. You could have the fairest judges in the world, but as long as there are no real world consequences accompanying the scammer tag - which there aren't and cannot be as it exists at the moment - it's going to remain a joke. Unfortunately, it looks like this topic has already derailed into being a discussion about your businesses in particular rather than about the value or otherwise of the existing scammer tag system. |
|
|
|
|
One problem I see with your proposal is that some of the BF board members are also operators of high profile Bitcoin services, and there would be real or perceived conflicts of interest in them endorsing Bitcoin services in general. If you put them in charge of writing and enforcing standards, the accusation will be levelled that the standards will be set at a level which they can easily reach but which newer, smaller services cannot.
These businesses are tiny by real world standards and the costs of compliance with the kinds of standards you're talking about are not trivial. Very, very few existing Bitcoin services would have the capacity to meet such costs at this point in time - you're just going to create the very kind of monopolies which Bitcoin seeks to avoid or people are going to ignore official endorsement rendering it pretty much useless.
Yes, it's desirable that Bitcoin services hold themselves to high standards in terms of security. No, it is not realistic to expect that they can spend more than their individual businesses are worth on the kind of security used by conventional financial institutions.
Payment card industry standards aren't even especially relevant to many of the Bitcoin services you've mentioned. The major risk comes from them acting as deposit-taking institutions, even though that is not their core business in most cases. It's not at all the same as the card issuer>acquirer>transaction processor cycle.
|
|
|
|
Have you repaid squall yet, dank?
Not fully, 23 paid 52 outstanding, He has not been home for a few days to send. So he's not paying interest for any of the loan period despite the original agreement being 2% weekly for 2 months? |
|
|
|
|
Given the track record of black box investments around here, you might need to provide a tad more information - starting with who the fuck you are and why anyone should trust you with even one Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to "protect the scammers," but I feel that we shouldn't post his information completely publicly.
Of course his information should be public. The identity of anyone who wants the community to entrust them with thousands of BTC should be public whether they're running an exchange, a HYIP, an online wallet service or some other kind of Bitcoin business. That Trendon Shavers is a scammer is more reason to make that information as widely known as possible in this community and beyond. We got most of his info from Google, so your point about random Googling of his name is pretty weak. |
|
|
|
|
Have you repaid squall yet, dank?
|
|
|
|
Glad this thread still kind of lives on... I enjoy reading it  Will Too bad it'll be short lived, for the main one is no longer locked. Must have been 48 hours in Bitcoin time. |
|
|
|
People in here should calm down with dox'ing people. Im all with you if the person involved did actually scammed you, but you could do it more private, lets say in a private section of this forum, and the mods giving access there to some members after providing some proof, or some other way. I dont say that to protect any scammer, but it could possibly end sadly for the victim(s), according to laws.
Please, dont take this, what i typed, wrong
FFS. pirate was doxxed long before his ponzi collapsed precisely because the identity of someone to whom the community is entrusting hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions, if you believe the upper estimates) should be publicly known. |
|
|
|
|
Josh, will you please stop trying to deflect people's attention from the most important question of all - why your poodle has been turned into a piece of performance art (Joseph's technicolour dream coat, I presume).
|
|
|
|
|
Fuck the vase, how can you trust someone who not only owns a poodle but has mistaken it for a canvas?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
