Having merit means you have made “good” posts, while being on DT means you can generally be trusted, specifically to give good/fair/appropriate ratings. Or at least this is what these should mean.

I met someone a year or two ago who created his account *solely* to trade with others in the forum and that is quite literally all he did (I assume he also read some threads). He created his account, got locked out, and created an alt account to recover his first one, and his second account had total active time of several days and had a fair amount of positive trust from trades done on the second account. I believe I met him prior to the merit system being implemented, however he would obviously have no merit (he had zero posts) but appeared to be generally trustworthy. ETA - it was this guy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=515678 and his first account was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=406863

I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy. I explained why theymos might do this (Lauda has received positive trust subsequent to scamming), and why I thought why this is an example as to why the trust system is not working properly (lauda is selectivity scamming and is supported by many who are conflicted [or are afraid to oppose lauda]). 

If he was looking solely after OgN he could have given the ultimatum to lauda only. There isn’t any reason to make them both remove feedback if one of them is a scammer.

The action, if true, was done in favor of lauda...

My reading of the situation based on the available facts from the various parties is that one of the following happened:

(In order of likelihood)

Theymos threatened both OgN and lauda with a DT1 blacklist if they didn’t remove the negative rating for the other

OgN and lauda both agreed to remove the others negative rating if the other removed his rating against the other

I am not sure if others would consider the first scenario as theymos “forcing” OgN to remove his rating (there is a strong argument to say that “force” is not an accurate adjective to describe what happened), however the first scenario would theymos absolutely putting his “thumb on the scale” towards getting lauda rating removed.

If the argument to tip the scale towards lauda has to do with the many ratings he received since his behavior that showed his untrustworthiness, I would argue this is another flaw in the trust system in that someone who selectively scams who has a lot of supporters who are conflicted will consistently show up as trustworthy, regardless of what they do.

Did you create this in a new thread? Or was it posted in an existing thread? What thread was it in?

I don’t think what you posted would belong in technical discussion. If there is another thread about the subject (I’m not sure one way or another), the duplicate thread should be deleted.

The identity of the moderator isn’t really important. If you have a concern about your post being deleted, you can complain in meta, and you can be told the post was correctly deleted, with an explanation, or if a mistake was made, this can be addressed.

I don’t think trading hacked accounts are allowed here.

If it is determined an account is hacked it will get locked.

NK currently has “elections” but they are not real.

The current NK government has removed many basic freedoms from its people, such as freedom of speech, even among other citizens speaking 1:1. It also has millions of its citizens in what amounts to concentration camps that use forced labor, who were convicted of questionable crimes under questionable circumstances.

I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly think this is how the NK people want to live.

 Often, one user will give retaliatory negative trust but his ratings are meaningless and he ends up with additional negative trust for “fake ratings”. This is very one sided because one person is effectively trying to defend himself but only ends up with additional negative trust to the extent that he cannot reasonable expect to rebuild his trust score.

Some people also criticize certain people (because of a rating they received or otherwise), and end up receiving negative trust for this specific reason.

Frankly, I think it is past time to ban a number of people from being on DT (both 1 and 2) permanently, and there are a small group of people who should be banned from appearing on anyone’s trust network unless they are directly trusted by the person, and there is a small handful of people who should be considered to be banned from having their ratings show up by default (and their trust list being considered) under any circumstances.

I don’t think it is appropriate to give negative trust for being critical of someone or “slandering” (allegedly or in reality) under nearly any circumstances. Doing this (in response to criticism about you or someone else) should make the person a prime candidate for one of the above types of bans. If you are being criticized, the proper response is to make a well thought out argument, or you can ignore the criticism.

---

Regarding CH (since this has become another CH thread) — I don’t think negative trust against CH is appropriate. To my knowledge, he hasn’t ever tried to scam anyone, nor has he done anything that would be reasonably consistent with him preparing to try to scam anyone in the future. It is my belief that his siding with scammers is him being critical of the system and not necessarily to help scammers.

The South Korea defense ministry has said that North Korea has fired a short range missile at 9:06 am local time

You are implying someone should have a “bright red warning” if they do something you don’t like, which is implying they should have negative trust as you have a “bright red warning” when you receive negative trust. Receiving negative trust means that the person is calling you a scammer. Doing something you don’t like doesn’t make you a scammer and as such you are advocating for anyone who does something you don’t like to be slandered.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

leaving a negative rating in itself is calling the person a scammer. Read the description of a negative rating on a trust page.

What warning box are you referring to?

Edit: if you are referring to the box seen by guests when the OP has net negative trust, this is really not new because the description of a negative rating says the person is a scammer. In reality, anyone leaving a negative rating could potentially be liable for libel, however damage to ones reputation is likely going to be small for someone who isn’t on DT.

Most people on DT are likely to have little assets and it would be fairly expensive to even find their identity if someone tried to sue them.

Edit2: someone leaving negative trust without “full proof” will not necessarily cause liability, the threshold is if the person is actually a scammer or not. Although having “full proof” is a very good way to avoid liability.

Read the rest of my above post.

Having someone on your trust list is saying “you should listen to this persons ratings” so a court may find liability. This is only in theory.

Edit2: the stipulation that the reviewer *strongly believes* the person to be a scammer may provide some protection but this is not absolute

Would you consider directing them to provide a (limited use) captcha link to someone who can provide similar information that would be required to reset their password (or perhaps needing to provide slightly less information).

The reason for this would be to allow someone who knows their password to access their account if they are having problems with the google captcha

Why would someone who receives a tag possibly continue to use the account long enough to show himself to be trustworthy? The purpose of buying an account is almost always going to be to earn income in some way and a red tag is going to prevent that.

Further, you are asking for people to prove their innocence.


I cannot speak for his actions, however I don’t think it is unreasonable to say he doesn’t follow forum politics.

I would also correct you. Not all account sales result in negative trust. I would encourage you to review the case of aTriz — his account was sold and not long after, he went into business with someone who is one of the most active in tagging sold accounts. There are no special circumstances in that case that might warrant a negative rating to be withheld.


There are enough people to trust someone with money who has sold accounts that it would work. There are countless threads that say “~don’t worry about my negative trust, it only for account trading”.

Their goal is to have negative trust for reasons that many don’t agree with before their first scam attempt. Negative trust will severely handicap your ability to conduct business but when you have negative trust for questionable reasons, the impact decreases.

I don’t think there is a big difference for each additional negative rating received.



I agree with this. Although not everyone agrees with what makes a negative rating “justified”. That is off topic here however— there is enough on the subject to fill an entire sub.


Regarding the last part of this quote, there are no rules against account trading. Only a small number of people are leaving negative trust for doing so.

The ICO hype may very well have resulted in more people farming/buying accounts. I don’t think that the person posts shit, or probably will post shut is a good reason to leave a tag. This actually harms the forum because it makes it more difficult for the administration to detect a certain person is posting garbage. If someone is posting garbage and receives a tag, they will just abandon their account and create/buy a new one because their old one can no longer effectively earn advertising revenue. This will make it less likely they will show up on the radar of the administration.


Posting garbage is no reason for a red tag, at least in most cases. And if they buy an account for 100$ they'll just scam a bigger amount. Maybe do a few successful trades before to gain trust and finally increase the amount of money and scam. I remember the account JusticeForYou where the suspicion was exactly the same: gain trust (comments in Meta + VIP account) to pull a scam. Btw, the user stopped posting after he got his red tags...[/quote] I don’t think you need to buy an account to do what you describe.

If they try to scam for a large amount, the chances are less that the attempt will succeed. If the attempt is unsuccessful, they will probably get tagged and lose out on the $100.

I don’t think there is any evidence that JusticeForYou was planning on scamming. I am not aware of him engaging in any sales threads. Anyone who leaves ratings because they post a certain option has no business in DT. He was also making the opposite kind of statement that would be expected from someone trying to get positive trust in those types of threads. 


Once the buyer buys the account, they would then be in the same situation as the seller previously was. If they need money, they can sell their account.

There is no reason for the forum to pretend that it will catch all sale. However banning the practice will stop the majority of them.

The underlying reason why someone would pay money to buy an account is because they believe doing so will generate money in the future. If there is a real risk of having your purchased account locked, it will make less sense to buy an account. IIRC, there was at least one instance in which someone who was banned created a new account for the purpose of buying an account. BadBear waited until he purchased the account and banned it for ban evasion, causing the person to literally waste their money and probably not try to evade their ban again.

I have accidentally clicked on the ignore button when trying to click on a persons trust (from a post), and when trying to click on the “profile” and “PM” icons, all adjust to the ignore button.

There is also nothing to stop you from creating a new account to read their posts.

Also if they post something about you, it may be necessary to respond to them.

regarding TMANs post, I don’t see what attitude has to do with the trust system. It seems that TMAN is saying his trust will improve if Marco gets along with those are in charge of the trust system.

---

For a group of people who claim to be experts in finding scammers (based on how many tags they hand out), you are all very bad at articulating why someone looks untrustworthy. My opinion is that Marco looked somewhat suspicious and a bunch of people decided to tag him, and some more decided to pile on.

Taking out many loans is not necessarily suspicious. Being late (even 2 times) isn’t a big deal so long as the lender is duly compensated. If someone has 2 late payments on their credit report, both showing the payment 30 days late, they will probably not be ineligible for a “prime” loans — that is a loan on the most favorable terms a bank would offer.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of other things that make Marco look untrustworthy, primarily increasing the amount of money he is asking to borrow at a time.

OgN has negative ratings for personal reasons. You are afraid to leave negative ratings for those that can return the favor even if they are doing bad things.

It’s the difference between speaking truth to power and being a coward.

If the basic facts in the articles are correct, they are raising money by selling equity. Current owners will end up with less percentage of the company.

On net, the customers are not affected because they can receive the total amount they have in deposit.

Binance was hacked multiple times last year, loosing a billion dollars plus and used reserves to cover the losses. I am having trouble finding a link to support this. I believe it was late 2017 or early 2018