standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws just means that people need to be smart enough to not leave certain bits of evidence behind while doing what they are doing. Not being able to leave someone feedback on a technicality doesn't seem fantastic either. In addition, untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective, so who will decide what warrants negative feedback?

If someone leaves a frivolous negative because they believe you are untrustworthy on the grounds that you bought your account for example. A fair number of people might find that significant and would rather it not be covered up because it isn't breaking any laws, agreements, and no theft was involved.

I might be missing something, but who said 5G would be 80Ghz? Anything in the EHF spectrum starting around 20Ghz isn't suitable for data transmission, as it starts to get interfered with by the atmosphere.

*Edit*

Found it, here is the study that everyone seems to be referencing that proved that you could use EHF for 5G: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/25/7469422/07434656.pdf?tp=&arnumber=7434656&isnumber=7469422

Still reading through it, notably the loss portion of it. I'm not sure how much loss is permitted where a signal can still transmit all of the data that would be required. Gut reaction is still that high frequency 5G bands are being reserved just in case, and that it isn't very feasible.

Personally I absolutely disregard someone's feedback as soon as I find a single incorrect detail. If you want to leave someone a positive feedback that says 0 risked BTC, but the comment says, "Held 500 BTC for the forum" thats fine. As soon as you fill in that 500 BTC as risked, you've lost all credibility in my opinion, and the same is true for countering feedback with false risked BTC.

I'm not seeing your example there, isn't that the accountability we are talking about? If BAC leaves controversial ratings, it would reflect poorly on me as me lending my trust in his ratings. As a result, I should remove him from my list, or others will doubt my ability to be a judge of ratings and exclude me. That is a feature we want correct?

As for the ratings only part, if BAC has someone on his trust list that I think is too volatile to be on DT, the process starts again, the individual gets pressured, BAC would get pressured, and then I'd get pressured in that order if nothing is done about it. In that case, I could exclude that person and it'd be settled.


There are a few features that I'd like to see changed around a bit, but I still think the biggest problems with the trust system are interpersonal problems. Its like inventing the chainsaw, and then deciding, yeah this technology is no good, the people are juggling with them instead of cutting trees.

The audiences overlap to some extent, but in some regards don't mesh well. A lot of metal investors do so because they share a similar skepticism towards fiat currency as many here hold. A key difference you mentioned is age. Metal investors, typically have an older less tech savvy demographic, and more importantly are rooted in traditional forms of commerce. "The government can't print gold! Effort, labor, and scarcity are all we need to rely on! If its worked well enough for thousands of years, why should newfangled fiat or even worse Bitcoin be a viable store of wealth?" - Anonymous gold investor.

Bitcoin relies on a lot of the modern economic principles that fiat operates under, just without a central issuing authority that is less susceptible to human meddling. Each has pros and cons, I just think its funny that people feel the need to bash anything be it gold, bitcoin, fiat, or desirable trading cards. If you don't like it, don't use it, just hedge your bets I guess.

Keep in mind that premiums on physical crypto are literally insane, and only willing to be paid by a small group of fanatical collectors. It takes a lot of effort to fund/hologram/customize each coin with understandably drives up the cost of production. I could be wrong, but If you want it to be a Bitcointalk coin that just general users buy, you are going to have to keep costs low enough that people outside of the collectibles market don't laugh themselves into a coma. If its going to be a small limited batch for the collectibles section folk, I suppose go ahead with any plans to denominate/fund/hologram/customize with names.

Just something to consider

The grand standing is appreciated as always. You can waste your time worrying about 1 in a trillion scenarios if you want, but most people are happy to live their lives without worrying that someone from the forum is going to hire someone to come get them or stage some sort of IRS conspiracy.  My response is that you are giving these people power over you. That doesn't excuse their action, I'm just saying you are taking the absolute least effective course of action. The DT bullies you are spending your time fighting, and the hours you are spending trying to reform a system is to fight someone with the authority of a hall monitor. If we aren't willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll read feedback before judging its validity, then its all a moot point anyway. If a negative rating about you being a space alien can effect your business in any way, then this is not a hospitable business environment.

The trust system is indeed a tool for the newest most new and uniformed users to help them wade through the marketplace. I'm not seeing any new uniformed users here. The fact that you have already formulated your own idea of who is trustworthy and not means that you aren't relying on the default trust system. New users will do the same in a couple of months. I don't think it plays a major role here, no. Its a nice handy guideline for new users, not some all powerful list that decides the fate of anything besides a general suggestion for new users. What we are talking about is personal problems between users. I'm against creating a billion sets of rules that restrict users because 10 forum members can't get along. Then we add more rules when someone finds a new way around them. As we've had this discussion before, I don't agree with your rule proposals. We've already established that everyone here has different definitions of untrustworthy behavior, why suppress the feedback from people that are in the wrong? Let individuals judge who is wrong and who is right. If you are saying, yeah but we can't trust the users, they won't make informed decisions! Thats not a problem with the system, thats a problem with individuals once again.

We keep talking about how the trust system needs to be decentralized yet specific rules can be bullied into vote by either Extortion Group or Anti Extortion Group? Both groups are in effect looking to accomplish the same thing. You want accountability and by doing so making the trust system useless. They want to keep abusing trust, but my point is that people abusing trust doesn't break the system, it just makes their flaws more obvious. Let them make their own flaws obvious and trust users to make their own decisions.

Also, I haven't been a moderator for a few months, didn't have time to continue. The ignore button works pretty well when it comes to harassment.

Wow who would have thought, we disagree on nearly everything. Doesn't seem to be a product of either of us misunderstanding anything, its a difference of opinion. You are more hands on, I'm more hands off. My opinion mainly stems from my opinion that most users are able to use whatever tools are available to them however they find best.

People "troll" because their victim will engage, if you don't give them the satisfaction thats kind of the end of it. The bolded is kind of my point, if you have unwarranted negative feedback and people are trying to harass you about it, if you don't blow it up into a massive thing, it'll just look like them being idiots and no one will take the negative feedback seriously. You look innocent in comparison, and the group of supporters begin to lose supporters. If a restaurant owner has a fake yelp review against their store that says, "Yeah the owner called me a weather balloon and spit in my face!" people will likely assume that its fake. If the owner responds by insulting them and calling them fake, it lends credence to the thought that maybe the owner is unstable enough to actually do what was claimed.

You guys are being provoked into making any false claims against you look real.

Consider for just a second, lets say Lauda or whoever else leaves controversial negative trust. Your options are A) Spend a year fighting it to no recourse, or B) Say, yeah whatever I don't care what this guy thinks. I'm not saying its a good thing that people leaves controversial feedback, I'm saying worrying about it is a waste of your time. Ultimately who is in control of your reputation is you. You've been trading here for years, do you think Lauda's feedback would effect the trust that thousands of people have in you? And in the case that you were a new user, could you not just use escrow and build up your reputation to the point where thousands of people have trust in you? I feel like the argument against my opinion is that every user here is a robot unable to read feedback, detect bias, and the weight for feedback from known shaky characters for being a "liar" or whatever else, is the same as someone claiming that you scammed them.

I've managed to avoid harassment because I don't engage with people's provocation. There is always someone trying to start something, I'll say my peace if I feel so inclined and then I'm done. If someone wants to insult me, have at it, I've got thick enough skin but I wont give you the satisfaction of overreacting and making your day by becoming enraged. From my perspective, you are handing groups of people with 0 authority complete power over you. Its like bullies in elementary school, they can make faces at you all day, but they'll get bored if you don't start crying and screaming every time they do it.

I'm not against you in saying that it sucks people are trying to be internet bullies, I'm saying that everyone is turning a molehill into a mountain. If someone leaves you bad feedback, let them make a jackass out of themselves and discredit themselves. As soon as you fly off the handle and let loose on them, people start to think that maybe the negative feedback is valid.



I'll get back to you on this

I don't think its a reasonable risk, so not worth worrying about. When it comes to forum drama, I agree that there is no real world consequences, just an absolute waste of time. Every single day real businesses get slandered by fake reviews. Restaurants will hire people to leave fake Yelp reviews for competitors. That is the world we live in, yet they manage. I understand that it takes time to build a reputation here, but considering that the circle jerk of people complaining are not involved in business here, and those that are don't seem to have any inconvenience cast upon them, I'm hesitant to feel bad for them. Its a moral crusade for them, they have not been cut off from their income. Even despite years of this same stuff going on, I haven't seen anyone suffer any unreasonable repercussions.

If I could leave negative feedback saying "Tecshare is an evil purple alien, avoid his laser beam at all cost!" and that has any effect on your business whatsoever...I really don't know what to say about that. There is absolutely no reasonable solution in that case.

For the record, I'm not saying I support anyone's behavior, I'm just saying its not worth your mental health to get too involved in it. People are going to think whatever they are going to think, if you must control the narrative, you'll go insane.

a. Browsers of the forum not logged in, who's opinions don't matter in the slightest would see a warning saying that someone has given you negative feedback.
b. Who cares? Are you doing business with them? If so would they not look at your feedback, if not, why care what other people who have no interaction with you think? I think you are a 9 meter tall purple dragon, do you need to prove me wrong about that?
c. Who is to judge what is related to scamming? The users that read your feedback. Maybe lemon hate is part of my fanatical religious belief, and other lemon haters out there need to know your preferences on lemons. Those that agree with me about lemons will take my warning to heart, and those that think I'm a nut job will ignore it.
d. Just because its not working the way you'd like doesn't mean its not working. There are some new interesting developments with DT, but I don't think it has yet stopped serving its intended purpose. People are just fighting over DT ratings while those actually trading continue to operate as normal, completely detached from who left someone feedback for lemons and who is a jerk.



I do not. As apparent, people say whatever they want regardless of trust bullying. Some people make alts, others send private messages to tip off others. Choosing not to speak up is a choice. Come on now, we are talking about forum politics, no one has your family kidnapped. Lauda can't actually whack you if you speak out against them, and it sure would be awful if they gave you frivolous negative feedback that would help you further your point. Free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want without people responding however they see fit. Freedom of speech is to protect you from the government for saying something they don't like, not to do whatever you want on an online forum without people getting mad at you.


Not really, still just looks like everyone has hurt feelings. What has your refusal to be pushed around accomplished besides spam? I'm not saying you are wrong to stand up for yourself, but what possible damage could have been done? I just think you are wasting your time. Just saying, "yeah whatever man" when Lauda goes on a power trip is just as effective as spending 120 hours composing posts about how outraged you are.  Why has their ability to earn from sigs been taken away? Does every single campaign operator value Lauda's feedback?



What if Lauda comes to my house and pisses in my cheerios? What do I do if they threaten to dox me if I don't pay up? I suppose I'd contact an admin or global moderator. Illegal activities result in bans here. If your investment is so shaky that a lie from Lauda can ruin it, you are an idiot for investing in it. If I had a bunch of red trust tomorrow and for whatever reason it was all staged perfectly so that I couldn't refute it, I'd ask MinerJones to escrow for me when I make trades here.


I don't acknowledge DT as a position of power. It sucks that things aren't fair, thats how the world works. All of these rights and fair things you keep talking about are government guaranteed rights to protect you from systematic abuse. The government doesn't have the right to say, alright you plagiarized so your life is over, but your account can be banned for that reason. You don't have a whole lot of recourse if someone decides to pick a fight with you on an internet forum, as long as its within the rules.


Fraudulently obtaining money from someone, with cash or cash equivalent changing hands.



Do you know how many people on this forum have killed another human? Do you know how many have committed actual serious crimes and have never been caught? I don't know either, but if you care too much about everything around you, you'll drive yourself crazy. Everyone on the internet is a liar to some extent. My real name isn't SaltySpitoon! I casually sprinkle a lie into my posts now and then, I don't actually believe you are a 9 meter tall dragon, and I used my measurement in terms of meters to possibly imply that I don't live in the U.S! I'm not going to worry about things outside an immediate sphere of feasible threats. Sharing a PM is a behavior I find untrustworthy, to me it means that someone doesn't respect a user's privacy. When I'm buying or selling something here, I use my real name. I am under the assumption that with reasonable people, they will not act in a spiteful manner such as releasing my information if I do not prompt them to do so, for example by scamming them.


Nope, because for the past years that I've been trading here, that hasn't seemed to occur.


Not interested in any brainwashing you are attempting. I've been a member here for 8 years, and was a moderator for ~5 years. I've got a pretty decent idea of how things have worked around here, where the troubles were, and how they were fixed. I really don't mean this as a insult, but if this isn't all just a game to you, I pity you. I'm sure there is so much more going on right now that you could use your time productively for. In the grander scheme of things, this is just as stupid as getting into a month long fight with someone on Reddit that insults your mother. None of this has any meaningful impact on you, rise above the forum bullshit and reclaim your time.

As for me, I've got a couple of days off and nothing better to do, so here I am! But, I'll go back to ignoring your long rambly posts that inspire me to write equally long rambly posts soon.


This is my TLDR:

Who cares about what people on the internet do or think, worry about real problems. If you don't have more pressing problems, I guess good for you? Getting spun up at every provocation and atrocity committed against you is not the way to go.

Also:





*edit*


Good to know.

Look CH, my point about lemons is that anyone can leave anyone feedback for any reason. Feedback means absolutely nothing without a reason that others accept. I don't accept negative feedback for account buying. You don't accept negative feedback from the group of people you dislike, thats all I meant. I could leave you negative feedback for liking lemons, and people would simply disregard my feedback, that is how the system works. For that reason, it doesn't matter if people leave you stupid negative feedback as long as its honest. I can't leave you negative feedback saying you scammed me if you didnt, but I can leave you negative feedback for having hyphens if your name if I so desired, people would just disregard it. The way the system is set up is that if you leave feedback that the majority of people disregard, then your feedback is useless and you don't deserve to be on DT, eventually you'll be removed, and the problem fixes itself.

I don't care about what Lauda does, because I don't think it matters. They can try to be a trust bully if they want, as I said before, this is entirely about hurt feelings. Show me a business owner or any individual marketplace goer who has had their sales unreasonably hurt by Lauda or anyone else for this matter, and I'll start to care. For that matter, show me how you have been effected in any way since becoming a target of Lauda and gang?  I've had pms from Lauda asking me to do things, I've had others ask me to do things about Lauda, I'm not interested in getting into online fights with people I don't know and will never meet.

Who is more dangerous to the board? Neither of them, they are both inconsequential to "the board". They are having a personal spat that in no way effects the Bitcoin forum in any way. I don't care about double standards, they don't matter because this is a private forum, no one is entitled to a fair anything. You can't regulate personal relationships between hundreds of thousands of users.

Do I care about scammers? Somewhat. Do I care about liars? If I'm not trading with them, not really.  Do I care about trust "abusers"? We have very different definitions of trust abuse. Your definition, not in the slightest. By my definition, somewhat. Just to be clear, I don't support anyone here. I have two or three pals that I know in real life that use this forum that I care about then there are a handful of people here that I enjoy having conversations with, and people that I wish the best for, but I don't "support" them. I have no different impression of Bill than I have with you, Lauda, or almost anyone else in this thread.  

You are all taking yourself way too seriously. Nothing will happen if Lauda is free to pretend to have some sort of weight to throw around, nothing will happen if you complain about it. If Lauda and cronies find their way into the forum database let me know.

Why should you expect a PM to be private if its encrypted? I expect you'd give the receiver a way to unencrypt the message as its intended for them. What prevents them from posting it after unencrypting it? I also don't see anything about posting your own sensitive information in the scam report format. The whole basis of the argument is that Bill could have handled this better. They could have said the same thing they wanted about Lauda without calling out the person who gave them the information, that explicitly stated that they weren't saying it publicly because they were afraid of retribution.



While Bill may not agree, I'm sure it has become clear at this point that a fair number of people agree with this sentiment. People of sound mind are able to put aside their personal beliefs for the sake of reasonably interacting with other humans, ie not spitting in people's hand during a handshake, or holding back offensive language when talking with certain people even if its part of your normal vernacular.

Its not like talking some some of the bricks here that you could spend all day trying to convince that the sky is blue, but it would never sink in.

Well we seem to have finished discussing what needed to be discussed, but I noticed I missed this gem. Its an interesting ethical situation that goes both ways sometimes and with mixed results, at the risk of getting into a conversation that may hit a little too close to home for the public, if you don't mind I'm going to change the scenario just a tad.

I'm going to stick with the Lauda mafia boss analogy we've been going with here. LFC spilled the beans to you for your sake, because if they did so publicly they'd get "whacked". Then you confront Don Lauda with that information and LFC gets whacked. RIP.

Anyway, whats done is done, but in the future maybe consider the intent and implied privacy behind a private message versus something public. I'm with FH on this one, its bad practice.

OJ Simpson

Yeah, I don't care about Lauda in the slightest, because assuming everything everyone is claiming is true, it absolutely doesn't matter in the slightest. Whether you guys still can physically see ratings by Default trust or not, not a single one of the people that has responded here uses it. Thule, when you see negative feedback left by Lauda for someone, do you disregard it? I'm assuming your answer is yes, in which case that means you don't use default trust. Relying on default trust means blindly relying on the feedback left by those users because you don't know any better. Everyone involved here knows better, so they know who's feedback to disregard or value. Everyone is just complaining about a DT mafia because conflict is fun. Like I said, the power of DT is literally the same as a PTA, maybe a little annoying but they don't have any real authority to do anything. When was the last time any of the involved did a trade here? (looks mainly at the collectibles section users) Ok, does Lauda or anyone else's feedback mean anything to you if you've been trading within this community for years and know who to trust? And if you aren't certain, or are trading with a new user do you just use Minerjones as escrow? Cool, problem solved.

Just to clarify, all of this DT red trust and such is about your feelings being hurt, not that it'll affect your account in any way. Thats fine, but everyone can tell what it is, this massive conflict is because of hurt feelings, not for the greater good and justice.

Righto, so you say "Hey guys, Lauda is pressuring people like some mafia boss to ...." Obviously the PM was made to you because it wasn't something LFC was comfortable affixing their name to as a public post, but they wanted you to know. Who is going to blow a whistle if the one who obtains the information gives away their source? I'm just saying that I find your actions incredibly untrustworthy, far worse than buying an account and operating it for years without incident.


 

I didn't claim that LFC was intimidating you, I claimed that Lauda was intimidating LFC, LFC let you know, and you broke a more about trust and private messages. If someone gets scammed, you don't post the scammed person's address to take down the scammer.

You weren't being intimidated by LFC, if anything LFC was being intimidated by Lauda, so they decided to make the matter private with you. You put a victim's PM out there, not the perpetrator.