There will be even more drama than before.  I think this will mostly consist of you wining and bitching about your loss of power. It should make it more clear that you never cared about protecting others, but wanted power and money/business for yourself. |
|
|
|
Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were. Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance. 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.
|
|
|
|
A while ago, I was actually thinking about joining their campaign as some sort of experiment, back when they still paid a maximum of 0.1 BTC per week (if I remember correctly).
Just to see if I could actually manage to make those 1000 posts required to get the max amount. Not sure if it was a 1000 exactly, but that's the number I vaguely remember.
Not by shitposting my way to 1000 mind you.
They are paying $0.3 per post for legendary members, and bitcoin is trading at roughly $8000/btc. In order to get 0.1 BTC you would need to make about 2667 posts. This would be basically a full time job. |
|
|
|
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. It sounds to me like you are supporting weaponizing the trust system. You should be blacklisted. If you have technical arguments as to why BSV is inferior to bitcoin, or other altcoins, you should make them. While I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded argument, about anything, I do not doubt that others who are smart can make arguments against BSV, and people can judge for themselves if they want to buy/use it. |
|
|
|
In this post, he acknowledged the debt (in a quoted post of his), and the repayment address, bc1q2nwf4njwkpeuyycx5a95nj6mf8m45djdk863xs which does not have a transaction receiving 0.01, the promised amount to be repaid. |
|
|
|
So long as theymos keeps his word, the trust drama should be removed: 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.
|
|
|
|
QS doesn't have the same definition of the word "embezzlement" as everyone else, this is it, really.
What is your definition of "embezzlement". Please be specific and explain clearly so I can understand... It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets. The persons entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embezzlement) So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Hhampuz is secretively planning to steal from every campaign he manages, shall they go MIA ? Hmmm, it appears that is precisely what Hhampuz did.... |
|
|
|
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this: 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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35. Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad. |
|
|
|
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this: 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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format.   More projection I see. |
|
|
|
Your participants have a median of 3 merit, nearly 40% have zero or 1 merit, and nearly 2/3 have 5 or less merit. There are 51 accounts that posted in your signature campaign thread that are perma banned, and although they all might not have been participating in your campaign when they were banned, I suspect the majority of them probably were. Are you making this stuff up to try and bait me to count the merits? If over 80% of the campaign is full member+ how can 40% have 1 merit? I'll give you something more accurate than the median merits of the campaign, the average including Jr/Members 367.94 average merits for a Stake campaign member. It doesn't take much effort to find out your claim is 100% false My claim is not false. It assumes that everyone who posted an application and is still wearing a stake.com signature is a participant in your signature campaign, which I have every reason to believe considering it appears you have accepted everyone who applied except those with negative trust. If you had an account when the merit system was implemented, you were grandfathered in and received merit equal to the minimum needed for your then-current rank. My post was referring to the merit that people received subsequent to the implementation of the merit system and excludes any grandfathered merit received. My numbers were accurate as of this past Sunday when I obtained my data, and are almost certainly still accurate. I look at your list of 51 banned accounts and I don't even know who majority of them even are. This is completely flawed because you're making your own list of people so your information is false. These are not random people, nor are they my own list. They are people who have posted in your signature campaign thread and are currently banned. When I have more time, I will cross reference these people against those who actually submitted applications, which I would assume to by the majority of those banned. Low merits does not mean someone is incapable of a good post either. Are you incapable of being trusted or making a good post because your trust level is so negative? 1 - Not receiving many merits is a good indication the person is not making very many good posts. It is possible that some people who make a lot of good posts may not have merit, however this is not the case with participants in your signature campaign. The amount of merit a person has received is a quick way to objectively measure a person's post quality 2 - You appear to believe having negative trust is a reason why someone is "incapable of being trusted or making a good post" as you do not accept negative trusted people into your signature campaign. Also, I did ask to join your campaign, which you ignored, however if I was participating in your campaign, I would have left because of a) the low pay rates, and b) because I do not want to be associated with the amount of spam your campaign generates That is strange because he applied to your campaign, and I don't see any evidence of you rejecting anyone who applied. Why did you not accept this person? However the root cause is that you are paying garbage rates Higher pay rates will only encourage people to post more and lower pay rates encourage people to post less. If we truly want to see spam gone then remove all pay per post features because that will always encourage spam. Once I lowered the pay rates I saw an instant decrease in spam and it worked out well. I suggest other campaign managers stop over paying for posts because your supply of posters far surpasses your demand for them. But sure everyone is going to hate me for saying that even though it's true because so many are making a career out of Bitcointalk You are ignoring the fact that your low pay rate is not going to attract those who are capable of making coherent posts. You are also ignoring the fact that the majority of people in your campaign have no business getting paid to post. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.
That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up. I don't see any reason why people will outright ignore negative ratings. They will still review the ratings, and take them into consideration, but if there is no clear articulation as to why or how they are unsafe to trade with, they will be rightfully ignored. I don't think it will be possible to weaponize the trust system anymore. Or at least it will be much more difficult to do so. |
|
|
|
Whose funds are missing ? BestMixers. QS doesn't have the same definition of the word "embezzlement" as everyone else, this is it, really.
What is your definition of "embezzlement". Please be specific and explain clearly so I can understand... |
|
|
|
|
Do you have bitcoin there? Or another coin?
If you have bitcoin, you could monitor the hot wallet balance, and withdraw portions of what you are owed over time. In theory, the site earns money from the losses of some of their players, so the hot wallet may eventually grow to cover deposits held on behalf of all their customers.
The above should not make it safe to deposit money to the site though.
|
|
|
|
Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were. Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance. 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.
|
|
|
|
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it. I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change). The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing. If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not take get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time. Negative ratings still exist and show up as having unique negative ratings on their trust number. |
|
|
|
Why don't we just set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which economic system is better once and for all?
I would refer you to the USSR in the 70s and 80s and the US during the same time. |
|
|
|
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it. I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change). The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing. If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. |
|
|
|
I would argue that if the flag is true in regards to a business, the flag should be applicable to agents or employees of the businesses in most circumstances. If someone were to resign from said business, and they did not play a role in the underlying facts that cause the flag to be accurate, the flag would probably be no longer appropriate for the now former employee. There might be other circumstances in which a flag might not be appropriate, for example someone being hired by a business to clean up the mess surrounding the scam that resulted in the flag. I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?
Each person can create a flag, however it will probably be redundant to to create more than a handful. Also, if a person exit scammed, they generally will not continue trying to trade. If they never login again, getting the person flagged is probably redundant, if they try to continue trading, they should be flagged. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
