Bitfinex was able to raise a billion dollars that was presumably used to repay the loan to tether.

The NYAG action has more or less been won by Bitfinex -- they no longer have to produce documents to the NYAG, and the order obtained by the NYAG has been reduced to prohibit bitfinex and tether from conducting related party transactions for some number of months.

The projection in this post...

And the hoping to cover up evidence lol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149932.0

Perhaps you should have asked if deleting a message from your inbox would have removed the message from the other persons outbox.

You are conveniently ignoring the part of my post in which you have the opportunity to prove I am a liar. Or that you are a 🤥

You are misrepresenting my previous statements and you don’t know who I have or haven’t contacted.

You are also ignoring my previous challenge. Or would you prefer to save face and admit the PM is authentic?

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. There is no double speak in that post. You can ask theymos to confirm/deny the authenticity of the PM I posted above. His silence would work in your favor. His confirmation the PM is authentic would be a major hit to your credibility and reputation.

I have explained previously that I believe it to be unethical to sue you. I would be careful because I don’t think everyone else feels that way.

If you are so confident that the PM is fake, you should ask theymos to publicly confirm the authenticity of the PM. Even if he is silent, it would be in your favor, but a confirmation the PM is legitimate and was sent to you would tarnish your reputation and credibility.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1240753.msg12916370#msg12916370

See link.

Those are words from BadBear. You can call him a scammer if you want.

You were previously excluded by HostFat, who is a staff member.

Here ya go!
The above PM was sent to Vod

I am not sure who your "prime suspect" is, but I found a "confession" in that thread:

The end user does not need to understand how the calculations are made. The end user only needs to know they should leave a negative rating if they strongly believe the person to be a "scammer" and a positive rating should be left if you have affirmative reason to believe the person to be trustworthy AND you should not leave a positive rating if there is a good reason to believe the person is a scammer (this is a lower threshold than to leave a negative rating, but will prevent a scammer from completing a small number of trades to erase the 'trade with extreme caution' warning. This particular proposal is designed to ensure there is something semi-resembling consensus for any labeling of someone as a scammer.

I don't think the requirement to present evidence of xxx alone is sufficient to prevent frivolous negative ratings. I am following both your and OgNasty's separate disputes with Vod, following what is being posted, it is clear that Vod is in the wrong, yet he continues to have many trust inclusions despite his lies and deception -- I believe this is because he has sufficient allies that he supports and who in turn support him regardless of either being right or wrong, they all simply refuse to criticize eachother no matter how outrageous they behave. I believe if it is required to publicly post evidence of "xxx" to post a negative rating, unless the administration gets involved in trust disputes, which I know theymos does not want to in ~all cases, those who are currently giving frivolous ratings will continue doing so, and will present troll posts as evidence, and others will continue to support these people out of fear of getting tagged themselves, or getting excluded from the trust network.

I also believe that someone displaying (multiple) red flags of being a scammer should be grounds for being labeled as a scammer. A brand new user asking for a loan without collateral is fairly clearly intending on scamming (even though their scam attempt is so transparent that labeling these people a scammer is probably unnecessary). If someone were to explicitly say they intend on stealing money once given the opportunity, I don't believe they would meet your criteria for receiving negative trust, but I believe others should be warned about this person's intentions. marcotheminer is another good example of someone I believes should be tagged as when he recently returned from a long hiatus, he started taking out loans in escalating sizes, and eventually tried taking out a $xx,000 loan, which is constant with someone trying to engage in an exit scam (he was actually tagged by many before this, which was not appropriate). Someone running what is very clearly a ponzi should also be tagged.

Yes, someone displaying a "red flag" of being a scammer is very subjective. My proposal would address this problem by requiring there to be something resembling consensus for someone to be labeled a scammer. If I label someone as a scammer because they are displaying x red flag, and you disagree this red flag means this person will scam in the future, you can counter my negative rating, and others can chime in via their own ratings, and the system will only display a 'trade with extreme caution' warning if there is consensus, while leaning towards not displaying the warning, constant with the principal of the presumption of innocence. 

Ahh yes, that is my mistake. I am not sure what the distribution of page lengths look like, but some pages are shorter than 20 posts, for example for threads with 21 posts, the second page will have one post, and a thread with 3 posts will have one page with 3 posts. So long as the average thread length is above 30 posts, it would take an upper bound of 2 months to scrap all the posts.

You should be able to filter these types of posts out. Ditto with posts under a certain length that would not be reasonably plagiarism.

Fair enough. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

The 5,000 day figure was based on Vods half billion post figure.

Most likely, the bot scrapes posts on the forum, compiles them into a database along with who posted and the date/time of the post, and cross references the posts among other entries in the database. Presumably other sources of writings are also compiled into the database, such as news articles, blog posts and similar, and the scraped posts are also crossed checked against these entires.

It would be very similar to how google or any other search engine works, except the database is run on your own server. 

If Vod is correct about the number of posts, that would mean taking over 5,000 days assuming one post was checked per second.

I don’t think this is what’s happening.

Also, without saying as many words, suchmoon strongly implied she would not report lauda plagiarism if it was found.

This is true. He was also the first to actually care about the problem years before any serious push was done to address it and find instances of plagiarism in masse. He also appears to care about addressing the problem a lot. I would be seriously surprised to learn that he is in no way involved.

Are you asking who is reporting the plagiarism to the moderators? Or do you wish to know which moderator is actually banning forum members?

There appear to be multiple people reporting plagiarism, although suchmoon is very clearly one person running a bot to check for plagiarism and I would not trust her to not use her bot to check for plagiarism against her enemies (very broadly speaking).

I presume that Hilariousandco is at least involved in reviewing the reports and banning people. Many who have been banned are addressing their appeal threads to him, so I would reasonably conclude that he is sending a PM when a person is banned. I don’t think he is a well known enough of a moderator for this many people to address their appeal threads to him and so few/none to other moderators. He also has been able to produce the specific posts that have been reported when people are asking about their ban. I would be surprised if he is the only one working on this though.

The same principle applies to property found inside a safety deposit box, even if rent is paid.

The relationship between Hhampuz and BestMixer is similar to that of the one between a depositor and ia bank, or perhaps a client and a lawyer.

In the case of a lawyer holding client funds, keeping the money separate is insufficient, the lawyer must keep detailed records of client funds, and if the detailed records cannot be produced, the lawyer would be disbarred. A lawyer commingling client money with their own can result in the lawyer going to jail.

---

---

Separately, at the end of the day, the money in question belongs to BestMixer who hired Hhampuz to safeguard the money and spend it for advertising in a very particular way. Hhampuz received payment for this service. I see no benefit to BestMixer for Hhampuz moving the money or using it for his personal use. No, keeping its location secret will not benefit BestMixer because it’s exi is already public.

Leaving money in escrow does not match the description of Eads v. Brazelton; the money was intended to be spent on advertising, but due to circumstances caused by Hhampuz (him closing the campaign), and the Dutch government (seizing the business), it was not. Further, Hhampuz was not acting as a landlord to BestMixer, it would be more accurate to say Hhampuz was acting as BestMixers agent. In the US, most state laws require banks to turn over unclaimed property to the state after 3-5 years of no communication, and as mentioned, the bank does not keep the money, it is sent to the state. Hhampuz did in no way "find" the money from BestMixer.

Well yea, you don't ever need to use any particular feature.


My understanding of the intention behind the current implementation of the trust system is it is intended to not be limited to those who you have personally traded with. If trust ratings were limited to trades, a scammer could simply never trade with someone on DT (or never scam someone on DT, but trade with them), and no warning would ever show, which on its face would be a bad thing.

This proposal is trying to solve the problem that a single person can effectively torpedo a person's reputation without any real recourse, even if many others on DT disagree. It effectively takes three people to override a single negative rating, and this number grows exponentially as each additional negative rating is given. There is a small group of people who frequently leave negative ratings together, that effectively cannot be overridden -- when 4 people leave a negative rating, it will take 17 positive ratings for for person to show as having not negative trust, and when 5 people leave a negative rating, 33 people will need to leave a positive rating.

The above group of people tends to leave very controversial ratings with impunity and without consequence, and this results in this group of people collecting additional support from others because they fear themselves being targeted by this group, and do not want to lose their reputation for arbitrary reasons (or for the underlying reason of opposing/pushing back against this group of people).

This particular proposal removes the ability to label someone a scammer for an arbitrary reason. If there is pushback to someone being labeled a scammer, it will take many people labeling the person a scammer, and if there is enough pushback, the person will effectively not be labeled a scammer.

I don't think someone needs to have actually scammed to be labeled a scammer, and it is sometimes appropriate to label someone a scammer if they are showing "red flags", however it is my belief it should be pretty clear cut if someone is being labeled a scammer. In any case, everyone will be free to review the text (and references) of trust ratings and come to their own conclusion if it is safe to trade with someone or not.

Not many people know how to determine who has included who on their trust list.

I am not referring to BAC, but under the old implementation of DT, you had at least one person who not only left many controversial ratings, but also refused to even defend his ratings, and chose to instead troll anyone who tried to defend themselves (which, BTW sent a clear message to others to not even try to defend themselves), and you were in no way held accountable. You were not the only one, Blazed had many people on his trust list who left many controversial ratings, and I am not aware of him being held accountable in any way. Both you and Blazed either ignored the problems, or pretended they didn't exist, and never engaged in any substantial discussion on the ratings of those in question. Going back further, CITM had a trust list that many people found very controversial for many months, if not over a year, and to my knowledge he did not encounter any problems in conducting business, and was only removed from DT1 when he left an indefensible negative rating for Dogie, who was able to concisely defend himself -- I have my doubts that the rating in question would have even mattered had it not been for dogies contributions to the forum.

So no, I don't think having someone on your trust list who leaves controversial ratings will reflect poorly enough on you to resemble anything close to you being held accountable.

In this example, everyone who has BAC on their trust list would need to exclude the volatile person, which is not ideal because not everyone will notice the problem right away.

A better example of this is probably Blazed, who as mentioned above, had many people on his trust list who had no business being anywhere near DT. I consider him to be generally trustworthy, have successfully trusted him with $x,000 in the past, and would probably be willing to trust him with $xx,000 if we were engaging in a trade that I believed to be mutually beneficial for the both of us. His ratings were similarly good. His trust list was not, nearly his entire list was compromised of people who I don't want in my trust network, and as such I eventually excluded him, knowing how the trust system worked and how to use it.

marlboroza is a liar who likes to twist facts for the benefit of those who he is allied with. I would not take him seriously.

He is intent on smearing and attacking anyone who is willing to speak out against any of his friends.