It's still working fine for me. Loads normally with untrusted feedback hidden. If I set untrusted feedback to display by default, it's a bit slow to load, but still displays normally after a few seconds. Don't know if that means theymos has changed something in the last few hours or if my computer is just superior to all of yours.  It's working for me too now, but it wasn't last night. The glitch must have been resolved. |
|
|
|
I also checked the archived secolgs between the initial post and the sale retraction post. There is no evidence of the password being changed in that time period.(I would think someone who acquired an account would at least do that, even if they got the e-mail and staked address. Why would someone leave the password the same after purchasing it, unless they want to get the account stolen back from them?) In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future. I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer. We can come up with theories all day to explain why an account offered for sale in October 2016 and retracted from sale in July of 2017 didn't change their password until February 2018. I'm going to apply Occam's razor and state the most likely explanation is nutildah offered the account for sale and no one would touch it with a 10 foot pole since the account would permanently be under scrutiny for being a possible sold account. Furthermore, I happen to believe that acting as escrow for an alt account is rather shady behavior. However, I am not going to add a negative trust comment for you, either. Does this mean that I shouldn't ever give a negative comment to someone else attempting the same act in the future? If I do, would this mean I am applying a "double standard" since I haven't added a negative trust comment for you? Of course not.  |
|
|
|
Hey look cryptohunter. I am only trying to follow one of the guidelines Theymos posted a little while back. I have put the particular principal in bold. I also try to follow the other guidelines as well. I'm not going to give a negative rating to a transgression that happened 3 years ago. Especially when no convincing evidence has been brought forward that establishes the account was indeed transferred. I also noticed in another thread that something similar was brought up about another user. I'm not going to neg that account either. I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. |
|
|
|
This simply means that ALL account sellers advertising can only be given red trust if the accounts password changes before it is announced that the account is no longer for sale. Fair enough if you say so. Plus I guess that time is open ended since it took him about a year to decide it was not for sale.
That is a new precedent and I see no disagreement from DT's in this thread so far that seem to have vanished. Perhaps I will call for their view on this one by one.
I mean perhaps that is a sensible approach but it must be the SAME for everyone here not just "pals".
It goes against what mikey and pharmacist have said..... but perhaps they now changed their minds now that it is meta club pal?
Password change is a requirement of red trust? or not?
I mean if you are selling the btc account with it then perhaps it is not as important as you think?
Or perhaps there are other ways around this.
Did you check if this account had any password/email changes at all?
Seems a lot of account advertisers will have to be untagged or proof of password change will be required.
You will do your best to counter tags of red on account "advertisers" when there is no password change. That's good I will create a thread and send all those tagged your way for you to balance their red as best you can.
Let's not make this about one person anyway this is a discussion of DT's opinion on account sellers/advertisers. Not just one account seller/advertiser nutildah.
I have already mentioned in previous posts that I take into consideration whether the account sale is overt or covert. Nutidah's case is clearly overt. I thought that I was pretty clear that I find covert sales unsavory and shady. I will continue to tag people doing it on the down low. Also, I had mentioned that I consider how "fresh" the particular case happens to be. In the Nutidah case, it already over 3 years old. I'm not going to make it a habit to sift through old garbage looking for posts to report and people to tag. Don't you remember when someone tried to get you banned for a copy paste mistake made years ago for no perceivable financial motive? I clearly recall stating this wasn't going to pass mustard, and here you are, still posting away. Perhaps other people have the time to go looking for skeletons in the closet. However, I'm not going to bother myself. |
|
|
|
This has now nulled mikeywith DT's post
One need to be pro-stupid to advertise his account using his account, it will be tagged instantly and nobody would want to buy it.
this is no longer possible bones just told you it must also now have a password change same goes for The pharmacist he can no longer do this if he does not flag nutildahs. This will be clear double standards for "pals" and others if they do. Since when was I appointed the supreme DT member? Just because I gave my rationale doesn't mean all other DT members must abide by it like it's some kind of decree. |
|
|
|
<snip>
Eh, okay. Then don't expect anyone to reply to any of your accusations, as nobody has any obligation to do so. Debate over. [waves magic wand] aaand debate open again I never asked for any of your commentary. I did however pose a direct question to Nutilduuh. None of your childish demands that I answer to this weird interrogation designed to distract from the fact that Nutilduuh tried to sell their account change anything. The fact is Nutilduuh was ready to sell out this user base and expose them to scams for money, and this behavior would be grounds for total loss of reputation if Nutilduuuh wasn't protected by people like you who refuse to act on it and would be ready to act in retaliation if anyone bothered to hold them to the same standards they hold others to. Exactly when did the Pharmacist become a DT member? I'm not certain why us newer Dt members need to sift through old garbage looking for people to tag. I already went through the archived secolgs and did not find that Nutilda changed their password between October 2016 when he opened the thread and August 2017, after he announced the account was no longer for sale. I don't see why any new account holder would not change their password after obtaining the account and attempting to throw us off the scent by announcing the account was no longer for sale. I suppose that original Nutilda could have posted it and then sold it on the down low. However, it already took me an inordinate amount of time to sift through the old seclogs looking for changed password. If anyone cares to take over, so be it. I for one am not going to red tag an account that was offered for sale 3 years ago and then the sale retracted, when it appear to be a case of no harm, no foul. Perhaps if this was a fresh incident, I would have tagged it. |
|
|
|
I just wanted to see what you all said about it.
This is not just about one person anyway this is a general precedent that I wanted to establish first. If someone advertised an account for sale then months later a message saying it was no longer for say appeared then does that get them off the hook or not or do they still get flagged?
If a DT really wants to know who this sold legend account or even DT member is then just ask me to create rep thread and I will post the SALE thread url for them to witness.
When you view that particular thread, I think a respondent stated it all: But it would be worth even less once someone tags the account as being sold.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.
It is clear that this individual didn't know what they were doing and likely made the account unsaleable. I also checked the archived secolgs between the initial post and the sale retraction post. There is no evidence of the password being changed in that time period.(I would think someone who acquired an account would at least do that, even if they got the e-mail and staked address. Why would someone leave the password the same after purchasing it, unless they want to get the account stolen back from them?) It appears that the case you are referring to is a no harm/no foul. I'm not going to tag it. Perhaps if it was a fresh posting, I may have decided to tag it. Now to be clear that we are on the same page, the example being referred to happens to be nutildah, correct? If you have another account in mind, I suppose that I can research that for you too. |
|
|
|
@bones
I notice you are now giving merit to people proliferating false information now.
stompix claims "You can't reason with him simply because he doesn't want to reason!!!
He's ruining every damn thread with his whining and false accusation just to attract some of the people here so he can whine more and accuse more, it's a fword never ending a story with him."
amongst other provably false crap and you merit it? are you out of your feeble mind?
Tell him to create a thread listing the false accusations, and present them. Tell him to include the "wall of text that has no meaning" and I will break it down for consumption for the dumbos here.
If not then he is spreading lies and I will start calling him out on it daily until he admits he is talking shit.
Same challenge I give to anyone in meta - bring the the parts of my posts that you can demonstrate are incorrect and present them. That's right none of you can can you? because I am only posting observable events and facts.
As someone who doesn't put you on ignore, I can attest to what I perceive as TLDR posts full of a bunch of vitriol and repetition. What's it to you that I handed out 1 measly merit to that post when I have 500 of these to give out a month? Anyway back on topic here with bones again.
What do you mean "It would actually be a whole lot easier if they just came out in the open with all the details. At least everyone would have a heads up on what account is in question."
If we know the account in question is sold, we know that anything posted prior to the sale is not their post history. We also know any trust comments earned is not their rightful trust comments. When the deal is done under shroud of darkness, we have no idea what is going on. This is why I am tagging account brokers. They are perpetrating a trade in false reputation on the down low and it's shady. I will still engage you even though I start to consider you very sneaky lately even though I had previously considered you more genuine than the other clear abusers here.
I should have just ignored you like is recommended in the other thread. Now that I have engaged you, I get the joy of being called feeble minded and sneaky. Engaging with you is about as pleasurable as getting a kick straight in the groin. Did it ever occur to you that people abandon their debates with you because they don't appreciated getting insulted? |
|
|
|
So, if someone advertises their account for sale then say about a month later there is a post from that account states the account is no longer for sale, then how can we know if that account was sold or not?
We can never know for sure. However, someone has been nice and have been archiving the seclogs. So if you want to sift through them, you can see if a password and/or email was changed. http://archive.vn/https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php
Yes and I guess even a determined scammer setting up a super heist could mimic to some extent any spellings or regular mistakes that were unusual.
I guess really all account sellers have to do is -- list accounts for sale then request the purchasers of those accounts just announce they are no longer selling and they can avoid red trust. Win win hey?
Most account sellers offer the account for sale under a different account and don't divulge the details of the account on the open forum. They usually complete the deal offsite under shroud of darkness. It would actually be a whole lot easier if they just came out in the open with all the details. At least everyone would have a heads up on what account is in question. |
|
|
|
You guys are very good at painting users. Always keen to find an issue in others. You are helping the community?
This guy may be late to pay but he repaid the lender with extra amount as late fees. One of the lender panicked so he created a topic. And you lot just ruined everything for this user?
After your red tag this guy could deny repayment. Who would suffer then? The OP of course, coz he would lost his money. Good thing that this guys did not do that.
How long do you recommend we wait to tag someone for being late on a short term loan? Especially when the lender starts a thread bringing up their concerns? It appears 10 days late on a loan that's only supposed to be a week is not sufficient grace for some people around here. Should DT sit on their hands for 30 days? 60 Days? 90 days? Indefinitely? Also, if DT spots the same account trying to get another loan while another is late, should DT sit on their hands? The only reason that I am not adding another negative trust comment to marcotheminer's trust page is because I do agree with LoyceV that this probably has more than enough redundancy at this point. Also, if someone is denying payment because DT started red tagging them for being late, that is untrustworthy behavior. In the end, I'm glad marcotheminer made everyone whole plus penalty and interest. However, in the future, it appears when marcotheminer is negotiating terms, he needs to learn to under-promise and over-deliver. As a bill collector, there is nothing more irritating than constantly getting "call me tomorrow, and I will pay," or "the check is in the mail." If they must be late, I would prefer that they just tell me a week or even a month (and make good) so I don't have to keep following up. |
|
|
|
That's not how "according to ..." works in English. It is not at all saying that everything below is according to Alex. That phrase literally means "the thing in the sentence prior" is according to him. So no, you're wrong. Stop spreading FUD.
What I am spreading is the truth spoken by a lead lightning developer, you seem to want the lie to be believed over the truth. Whatever, spread your lies all you want, but they are still lies and idiots like wind fury believe you, so you will bear responsibility for his failures based on your lies. GIGO - Garbage In Garbage OutGood Day.  FYI: You should rename this The Propaganda Forum, because facts seem to upset you, even from the lead lightning developers.FYI2: https://blog.btc.com/ultimate-segwit-lightning-network-guide-b665caf4d16Alice and Bob can open a payment channel, to transact a collection of signed IOUs between them. https://medium.com/@Aquentys/bitcoin-is-a-payment-network-and-gold-and-smart-contracts-and-the-internet-of-things-and-a-million-c5f36e58bdb0with transactions happening on Lightning (an IOU system similar to ripple original) which can only operate through centralised hubs/processors due to the economies of scale. I guess in this singular case , FUD = Facts Un Deniable  Um no, the six things the lead developer, Alex Bosworth, stated is in the tweet near the bottom of the article. Why is my node not routing?
1. You don't have inbound liquidity
2. Low uptime
3. Capital is committed to competitive destinations
4. Capital committed to destinations no one wants to send to
5. Fees are too high
6. Your inbound liquidity doesn't have good inbound liquidity itself https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/1105521307024646144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1105521307024646144&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.trustnodes.com%2F2019%2F03%2F13%2Flightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labsIt's interesting that one of your quotes is from the blog of BTC.Com, which is run by Bitmain. (You know, the one's behind BCH-ABC.) On the other quote, who the hell is @Aquentys? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of the lightning network myself. However, surely you can come up with better material than quoting a poorly written article out of context.  |
|
|
|
Bought another 0.2 or so. I think I'll be able to get a more substantial chunk within a couple of months, so I just hope the price stays in this area a little longer.
Yeah, right. We are just going to hang around here for a couple more months in order that you can buy another .2BTC. ok.... Too bad that they don't have BTC call options that I am aware of. Then d_eddie could buy an option to buy at this price (or a little higher) for the next two months. |
|
|
|
based on the multiple times this user failed to keep his end of the deal, does anybody who disagree with the current negatives think this guy deserves a trust page with 10 positives and an outstanding trust score ? He has had 2 red tags from Mitchell and BadBear (both former staff) since 2015. I don't think he deserves +100, but I also don't think he deserves -246. Somewhere in between fits the case better. This user got -256 after scamming more than 16 Bitcoin. There it's appropriate. This user got just -4 after scamming 7.37 Bitcoin. The number of tags seems to depend on how "high profile" a user is. Perhaps the formula needs to be changed. Instead of by x2 exponentially for each additional unique user negative trust, perhaps it should be reduced to 1.25. (After all, we have a lot more people on DT1 and DT2 now.) It would be nice if we could incorporate the "amount risked" into the score. Unfortunately, the staff would have to get more involved to ensure the "amount risked" amounts are not false. |
|
|
|
I think this is a good example as to why those who don’t participate in the marketplace have no business in the DT system.
Perfect example, and it hasn't even been the first to come by.. Meh, like our activity on Bitcointalk encompasses our whole life experience. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Since suchmoon deletes all my posts asking her why she puts so often false claims in peoples negative feedback i'm going to create that thread asking the community why she is adding so often false claims into her negative feedback ?
Just two quick fresh example
First one Marco where she holds the negative feedback "Failing to repay a loan, again."
If somebody reads that negative comment which is being used according to the info against scammers people will instantly belive Marco scammed more than once on a loan and didn't repaid them at all.
The comment is dated 03/15/2019. The loan was not paid at that time and was past due. Second one just my example
"Condacted an account buy in june 2018"
In my understanding it means i bought an account and suggest i own at least one alt which is false since i never bought any account as it was only an attempt (could let it pass)
It appears that this comment has been deleted/ never existed. What's the issue?
"Avoid any deals with this clown."
Suggesting i'm going to scam anyone who is going to make any deal with me even she was unable over a year to represent even a single person who claims i cheated on him.
Reference link provided. People can go to the material referenced and make their own assessment. Although I value Suchmoon's judgment, and in no way feel that her reviews are erroneous, I actually agree with you. It would be helpful if we all were more accurate in our reviews and gave significant details.
It's a nice goal to strive for, but us DT members are getting paid zippiddy do dah. We are doing the best that we can. If the members here want the trust comments to be handled on a strictly professional basis, written only by people with legal training, then they got to pay, or find a team willing to do it pro bono. That isn't going to happen. |
|
|
|
NO, its time that makes the dings have less impact.
Actually the formula for calculating credit scores is secret, and you do not know how specifically a credit score will change given a set of changes, and the credit bureaus periodically change the formulas. The fact of the matter is that if you are 30 days late on a payment, that fact remains on your credit report for 7 years. A loaning institution is free to use whatever scoring system they chose, or use their own criteria. If marco wants to continue to get loans, he's going to need to pony up the collateral.
I don't think you are in a position to dictate to others what terms they can conduct business on. People are free to give loans on terms deemed acceptable, no matter how risky or ill-advised. As I have mentioned before, I have over 20 years of both soft and hard collections. I deal with this situation day in and day out. Furthermore, how is me issuing my recommendation a "dictate?" It's not like I'm going to give out negative trust scores for anyone who wants to give a high risk loan. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.
Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.
The three major credit bureaus in the US log a ding on your credit if you are 30 days, 60 days, 90 days late. Also, you get an even bigger ding if it's charged off, goes to collections and/or gets a judgement against it. These dings do not go away even if you become current or pay it in full. (Although they do drop off after 7 years.) The impact on your credit score is much less if you are no longer delinquent on your loan (as well as the impact to most banks' underwriting standards). Also, marco was not 30 days late on his loan, he was a week(?) late, and appears to have paid compensatory interest, and most importantly, the lender appears to be happy with the transaction. NO, its time that makes the dings have less impact. Naturally, if you are 30 days late and then become current, it won't progress to the 60 day, 90 day, & charge off stage. Once it gets to the charge off & judgement stage, it doesn't matter if paid or not. In Marco's case, this is fresh behavior. And it appears he's done it to more than one person. If marco wants to continue to get loans, he's going to need to pony up the collateral. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.
Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.
The three major credit bureaus in the US log a ding on your credit if you are 30 days, 60 days, 90 days late. Also, you get an even bigger ding if it's charged off, goes to collections and/or gets a judgement against it. These dings do not go away even if you become current or pay it in full. (Although they do drop off after 7 years.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
