This is not “bad code”.  It is DIY crypto.  Worse, DIY crypto for a primitive—a DIY hash!  Worse still, DIY crypto by a corporate outfit which never showed any evidence of being inhabited by world-class cryptographers—despite their claim in a spin-job piece that “the IOTA Foundation has already subcontracted a team of 5 world-class cryptographers, as well as 3 independent ones to come up with a final design of Curl and then start the long peer-reviewed process, as was always the plan.”  N.b. that even world-class cryptographers need their primitive designs to undergo extensive peer review before fielding them with Other People’s Money—whether it’s the “final design”, or otherwise!

One of the people who broke IOTA had some damning words for it, in “Cryptographic vulnerabilities in IOTA”:


Anybody who buys into such ill-conceived crypto-junk as IOTA deserves to lose their money, on grounds of foolishness.

---

Who’s going to stop me from releasing code?  You?  Some government?

N.b. that anybody who could forcibly stop code monkeys from releasing bad code would also have the practical power to ban Bitcoin.


Well, next time somebody tries to argue with my statement that 99.9% of altcoins an 100% of ICOs are pure make-money-fast scams—may I refer to your above statement?

---

It’s all about the right tool for the job.  Simplicity is domain-specific, with very particular requirements.  The code used for creating Simplicity will inherit some second-order version of the same requirements.

Whereas for general-purpose programming, my own point was that there is no magic bullet.  If some Haskell experts think that Haskell is the right tool for their job, then they will probably get good results.  But their results will not necessarily be superior to those of C++ experts writing C++.  More to the point, Haskell would not be a magic bullet for fixing the trash code churned out by idiots; and on the flipside, there is no sound reason for, say, Core to switch to Haskell.

I observe, Simplicity will not be able to prevent people from writing insecure smart contracts.  Again:  No magic bullet!  Its purpose is to let smart people formally verify their contracts.

---

Open source is not a magic bullet, either.  You didn’t say as such—but many people do.  Thus why I added boldface to the important parts, which are facilitated and enabled by open source.


XT had severe bugs in its wetware layer.

---

This is what RISKS-subscriber types used to call “dancing pigs”.  People will not pay for correct, reliable, secure things.  People will not wait for them, either.  They want their dancing pigs, and they want them now!

---

Banks’ code quality is oftentimes abysmal.  Of course, it depends on the institution—and such questions as, consumer banking vesus institutional investment.  But overall, I think that much banking code is “WTF”-riddled stuff which ultimately relies on transactions being revocable.  At best, you can’t rely on code being good just because it’s from a bank!

Moreover, persons from banks have been immersed in an institutional culture which is inimical and antithetical to the culture of Bitcoin.  Individuals will differ, of course; but I’d start out wary of anybody who had worked for a bank.

Ultimately, with people as with languages, there is no magic bullet.  If you look to the backgrounds of the best (non-anonymous) Core developers, I think you’ll find some vast differences.  So as for past history.  The common factor in the present is that they are smart, serious, responsible people who are devoted to Bitcoin.  In some cases, zealously.

---

Good luck regulating me.  Or discerning which jurisdiction I am in.

Bitcoin is cypherpunk money.  Though I am sensitive to needs by others to comply with legal régimes, I am fundamentally opposed to any Bitcoin “regulation” of any kind.  Also, I myself will always ignore it in my personal affairs.

Moreover, regulations don’t work.  Highly regulated fields such as (cough) government and military contract work do tend to be bug-riddled abominations.  Banking code in many cases, as aforesaid.  Healthcare-related code, quite often.  And transportation...  Everything is broken.  Regulations don’t fix it.


I have an easier solution:  Don’t ever do “KYC”.  Avoid anything and everything which requires it.

For Bitcoin-related purposes, I have never submitted to any “KYC” identity-rape.  No, really.  Nobody’s records show I own even a single satoshi—“nobody’s”, as in “nullius”.

Oh—you said “ICO”.  Well, those are scams which should be avoided, regardless.

(Purposely quoting the whole thing, as I usually would not:)


On ante of my own merit masturbation video, I privately made a bet with myself that I could reach the “Hero” threshold of 500 merit within one calendar month of the birth of the merit system.  Alas, I failed!  I only reached 495 merit during the period from 2018-01-25 through 2018-02-24.

Unfortunately, as “nobody’s” wraith in the nym.zone, I am invisible.  Thus, the camera can’t see me.  Too bad.  I’m glad that the bet was only with myself.

Only 99% of merit Heroism within a month.  This merit system is way too hard!  All ranks will be frozen forever!  The merit catastrophe almost makes me want to curse.

The soonest I can reach the activity threshold for Hero Member will be 12 March 2019; so I suppose I have awhile to earn those 5 more merits.  Meanwhile, I will commence whining about activity thresholds.

Happy mensiversary to the merit system.

#1423659 “George51rus”

Date: 2018-02-25
Risked BTC amount: 0.0
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225034202/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3014024.0

---

#1224024 “ZhyravlikO”

Date: 2018-02-25
Risked BTC amount: 0.0
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225034202/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3014024.0

---

#896783 “sensei stupid”

Date: 2018-02-25
Risked BTC amount: 0.0
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225034202/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3014024.0

---

I left off there, only because time constraints so necessitated.  I may continue at any time.

At my exclusive discretion, I reserve the right to publicly post any PMs received by me (0) on the subject of negative trust feedback left by me, and/or (1) in relation to such a public discussion as this one.

Whines > /dev/null.

This thread is a fork of a thread which was started by #1183469 “trugad”, then apparently locked by him after things didn’t go his way.  Besides providing a place to continue discussion if warranted, the principal purpose hereof is to discuss appropriate action as for users who sent positive trust feedback to “trugad” upon his own admitted solicitation:


Pertinent links:

• Parent thread, currently locked: “I need your advice. Administration is powerless.”
• 2018-02-25 03:42:02Z archival snapshot (immediately after the thread was locked)
• 2018-02-25 00:57:17Z archival snapshot (used by me as reference link in negative feedback for “trugad”)
• Screenshot of “trugad’s” trust page, taken by me at 2018-02-25 01:31:15Z (uploaded by me while preparing this post) — N.b. that several more positive feedbacks have come in since then.
• My post quoting my negative trust feedback to “trugad”.  Contains information with convenience links as for all users who had left him positive feedback as of that time.

Following is a mostly chronological list of users who have left positive feedback for “trugad”—based on the key date of 2018-02-21, when ibminer left “trugad” negative feedback.  Unless otherwise stated, allegation of risked BTC is 0.0 and no reference link is provided.  Almost all the comments are only generic praise.  Comments are quoted only where I have not previously provided documentation (new feedback in the past 16 hours or so).

• 2018-02-23: #1423659 “George51rus”
• 2018-02-23: #1224024 “ZhyravlikO” (Also sent positive feedback to “George51rus”, apparently simultaneous.  Thus, simultaneous trust flowing “ZhyravlikO” → “trugad”, “ZhyravlikO” → “George51rus”, and “George51rus” → “trugad”.  Moreover, “ZhyravlikO” is the only user who had ever before left “trugad” positive feedback, on 2018-01-26.)
• 2018-02-23: #896783 “sensei stupid”
• 2018-02-23: #1107542 “veranika55”
• 2018-02-23: #1411750 “JohnPain”
• 2018-02-23 (twice!): #1205302, “bivins1”  Both allege 2.0 BTC transaction; no reference links (just like most of them).
• 2018-02-24: #1421907 “MDL Talent Hub” Alleges 0.02 BTC transaction and reference link.
• 2018-02-24: #1707152 “YaNinaMurmansk” Alleges 0.66 BTC transaction and reference link.
• 2018-02-25 (new): #1706912 “heavensuperman” Generically alleges reference link to a bounty thread.  No plausible explanation of how they transacted.  No risked BTC alleged.  Comment: “Awesome bounty manager! :) I'm realy trust him.”
• 2018-02-25 (new): #1712409 “Cardalex” Comment: “Very honest and decent bounty manager. Hard-working and studious. I recommend.”  No risked BTC or reference link are alleged.

I will immediately follow up with quotes of negative feedback which I myself have already left.  This provides further documentation, as well as translation of some Russian.  I have only processed a few thus far, since I don’t shoot from the hip; it takes time for me to consider these and write informative comments.

At my exclusive discretion, I reserve the right to publicly post any PMs received by me (0) on the subject of negative trust feedback left by me, and/or (1) in relation to such a public discussion as this one.

This thread is self-moderated to prevent trolling.  I will be fair.  In particular, I wouldn’t want to lose the posts of people who object to their own negative trust feedback; indeed, it may be noted, I tend to archive those.

This post may be edited to add or update information as the thread progresses, and/or to correct typographical errors.

(That last was added within about two minutes of posting.)

PM:

---

Trust summary for nullius: Untrusted feedback

User: trugad
Date: 2018-02-25
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3014024.msg31005716#msg31005716


(You may notice that my trust page has a few others like that from kooks and crooks like you.  They amuse me.)

---

Baseless accusation of a conspiracy?  Check.  It’s a spammer.  Spammers are always the same.

For the record, aTriz has neither contacted me about this, nor spoken to me about it in any way.  Not that that’s any of your business.  Spammer.

Being at least minimally literate in the English language, I am perfectly capable of reading all the words stated publicly in this thread.  Yours, aTriz’s, and otherwise.


Taken under advisement.  Having considered your advice, I shall now proceed to do whatever I please.

My own advice to you is that you quit whining, and leave the forum.

---

The major problem was solved when ibminer left you negative trust feedback.

The only remaining problem is that you continue to whine.  [Edit:  Plus the accounts which left you farmed positive feedback.  Thanks for reminding me; I’ve been slack.]

As a forum user who has suffered significantly from the spam problem, I have left my own feedback for #1183469 “trugad”.  Note the long list of users who have submitted what on the face of things is farmed positive trust feedback.  (I took a screenshot of the same list, although I have not yet uploaded it anywhere.)

Date: 2018-02-25
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225005717/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3014024.0
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000


Whines > /dev/null.

---

Edit, P.S.:  In case that last line be ignored, I reserve the right to publicly post PMs, e-mails, etc. from spammers and/or spam supporters and/or spammer supporters.

Edit:  Fixed two typographical errors.  Also fixed in the trust feedback.

“Very subtle”.  So very subtle as to be nonexistent in practice!  ’Tis both amusing and revealing, how Quicksy conflates actual power with the external trappings of power.

Mr. Quickseller, please wake up your second brain cell so you may cognize the bare fact that among other things, Lauda has:

• A corps of supporters who enjoy laughing at you.  Many of them are themselves of high status in this forum.
• Positive trust ratings from several highly respected personages who are known to be sparing in their praise and conservative in their vouches.  Most influential to me was Lauda’s positive feedback from Core superstar gmaxwell:  “Polite thoughtful communication. Seems to keep their head under fire.”
• The actual power to inflict serious pain on basement-dwelling scammers such as yourself.

Why would someone who has all that need to manufacture fake supporters in some way so small and “very subtle” that few people would even notice?  I mean, really:  How many people analyze the trust database?  Most people just look to the feedback.  A trust list entry only holds significance for more than one person when the lister is DT.  What, exactly, would be achieved by adding some nobody alt entries?

The absurdity of this charge, of this whole thread, is demonstrative of Quickseller’s thought process:  Manufacturing spurious trust list entries for himself to “look more influential” is precisely the kind of thing Quickseller would do.  Most people are unable to view the world through any eyes but their own:  Quickseller would (futilely) fabricate the external trappings of power in an attempt to inflate himself; ergo, to Quickseller, it seems a plausible accusation against Lauda.

Pathetic.  Like accusing a wealthy tycoon of counterfeiting Monopoly money so as to “look more rich”.

Actual power, Quicksy.  That’s what Lauda has, and you never will.  You are incapable of even understanding it.



Having been backed into a corner by Red Painter’s eminently logical question, Quickseller misfires.  Hey, Quicksy:  Have you hereto accused Lauda of having DT sockpuppets add her to their trust lists?  Or do you wish to do so now?

Or are you worried about all the people who meticulously search for obscure alt accounts to add to their own trust lists, so they can accidentally trust Lauda without even knowing it?  How very thoughtful of you, to show such empathy for psychotic retards who somehow have the ability to trawl the trust database.  Quickseller, the valiant champion of the insane idiot-savants, defends them against Lauda’s evil plan to swindle them for their trust!  Lauda is foiled!


Wait, do you here suggest that DT1 members be morons?  Well, some of them are; but they already exclude Lauda.  I should hope the remainder are too savvy to use the above-described Quickseller method of blindly looking at arbitrary numbers as a major factor in choosing whom to add to their own trust lists.

---

Red Painter nailed it from one side, thus revealing Quicksy’s thought process about what might make a plausible accusation:  A habituated counterfeiter would be one to accuse a millionaire of counterfeiting Monopoly money, yes.  Then, suchmoon hammers it home from the other side:  What is the logical end of this Quicksy-thinking as misapplied to Lauda, when Quickseller applies it back to himself?  Hmmm.  Known dealer in alt accounts who has previously sold a DT account to a scammer pops up with “evidence” (i.e. wild accusations) that some alts have trustlisted Lauda.  What might a reasonable person suspect from that?



Red Painter, quit whining.  Mr. Quickseller is fresh out of DT accounts, at this particular moment (or so we hope).

Any further questions?


I guess that means, “No.”

From the first page of this thread:


I’m not speaking for Alia here; but I think she spoke for herself, on this particular point.

From my own experience lurking in such places as /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin, just to understand the business:  N.b. that many independent camgirls do not show their faces.  If you want to get sexy online with a real “girl next door” type, you must understand that such a person may have legitimate privacy concerns.  As a privacy expert and a longtime privacy activist, I understand why a girl who exposes some of her fun bits may wish to protect her identity.

From my own recent experience gambling with Alia here, well—she just about doubled my money on my first bet with her.  Though that was a huge stroke of my famous luck, more than I expected from her method, I will probably go again; I’m trying to decide how much I want to put in the game!

I believe I am well-qualified to speak on this subject:  For I have never used what some people call a “bad word” anywhere on this forum, except either (0) within an accurate quotation of what was said by somebody else, or (1) in an anatomically correct, literal sense when engaged in sexual activity [NSFW].

This doesn’t mean that I be shy, much less that I be averse to conflict.  Pardon my French, but au contraire!  Why, I am the only forum member ever to have received +50 for an insult, as a shriek from the target of the insult.  My pen is my sword!

So, why don’t I use so-called “bad words”?

I take it as a challenge to express such things as anger and contempt with destructive creativity.  I believe that this is why my flames and insults are so effective:  I think insults through; I aim at the substance of my object of derision; and I know how to hit where it hurts, not just toss off a “f— you”.

I might call this the difference between Catullus and Cicero.  Besides being a brilliant satirist in his own right, Catullus is remembered as a fun bawdy; he wrote Latin poetry wherein he threatened to “arsefuck and facefuck” people who criticized his poems.  (TMAN, for shock factor alone, I think I found your second-favourite classical poet—your favourite being the eminent Sappho of Lesbos, but of course.)  Whereas Cicero’s tongue was so sharp that after he was murdered by traitors against Rome, his enemy Fulvia tore out his tongue and stabbed it with her hairpin in symbolic hatred for the power of his words.  I have a healthy respect for Catullus—as did Ovid; but I aspire to be more a Cicero, myself.  Oh, Cicero would get daily +50s for Senate-floor flaming!

Also, I like sex; and with the exception of “shit”, all the strongest contemporary English-language “bad words” are sexual in nature.  Why would I say “fuck you” to someone I wouldn’t fuck with a ten-foot pole?  Speaking of figurative ten-foot poles, I am proud of my dick and its functionality; thus, I don’t find “dick” to be an efficacious insult.  So, too, as for cunts, which are lovely and tasty.  Cunts are desirable (except unto those like Wendigo, who is freaked out by them).  I wouldn’t confuse matters by calling an undesirable person a “cunt”.

Now, I fully understand that most people absorb the definition of “bad words” from the society around them; and at their psychological roots, “bad words” grow from the subjective taboos of society as a whole.  In some past times, those taboos were oath-breaking (dishonour) and blasphemy.  Society has really gone downhill in recent centuries; and nowadays, sex is worse than breaking one’s most sacred vows, promises, and commitments.  (Parenthetically, I urge people to look around and consider the effects of this shift in taboos.)

I myself just always tended more than most to reject the society around me, and seek a better society.  Wherefore also my ideological attraction to Bitcoin.

But I am not stupid; and I won’t play stupid, as do some high-handed academicians.  I know full well that when TMAN does—that awesome TMAN shock-insult thing, he’s not literally deploying sexual language toward people he despises.  He’s applying the psychological hammerstroke of violating a social taboo.  And the taboo he so oft hits is evidently more sacred in the eyes of “mdayonliner” than basic honesty, wherefore “mdayonliner” whines about this:


The minor point is bemusement that you find the word “clowns” to be offensive.

The major point is that you are complaining about the thread and the post wherein Betfair stepped forward to provide evidence for cracking down on the “single worst case of merit abuse anywhere on the forum”.  Betfair helped smash up a ring of forum criminals; Betfair did a good deed in substance.  You complain of his style?  Tell me, are you in any way peeved that #1076869 “pitipawn” got roasted?  Why else would you whine about the word “clowns”?

Or are you a clown yourself?  Tell me, do you use Ethereum?


Wait, I am confused.  Is my name offensive to you?


Happy to oblige:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3013604.0


“The authority”?  Which one?  Do you mean, the management of Bitcoin?  A complaint about “bad words” was already raised to the attention of the management of Bitcoin, in a thread which offers (gasp) possibly naked gambling:


“mdayonliner”, I am so happy to have found your soulmate for you.  Now...

---

P.S., to demonstrate what I mean about how I don’t elide vulgarity when I am making an accurate quotation of somebody else:


P.P.S.—“mdayonliner”, you’re a poopy-headed clown.

Edit, P.P.P.S.:  Sadly, this being the Internet, I believe I ought explain the subject line.  It translates idiomatically, “I will arsefuck and facefuck you, faggot ‘mdayonliner’”.  Paraphrased from Catullus 16, the easy-wiki page for which is linked above.  I intend the verbs only in a figurative sense; my ten-foot pole will stay far away from you, though I do suspect that the taboo substantive may be literally applicable.  Now, have fun fuming at me for having used the words “arsefuck”, “facefuck”, and “faggot” in a paraphrase of a famous classical poem.

If you “join this greeting”, then I promise that you will wind up with dripping-red negative trust feedback.  Now, I will be watching you.

Try the “constructive posting” idea instead.  On a brief glance over your post history, I see some interest in paid signature ads, and some low-quality posts; but I also see more sincere interest in good posting than the general class of idiots whining about the merit system.  E.g., this showed the correct attitude, albeit a total lack of reading comprehension when viewed in-context:


(Yes, most of the Off-Topic forum is pure trash by illiterate morons who are trying to pump their post counts so they can “rank up” for paid signatures.  Some posts in Off-Topic are valuable.  But all this is irrelevant; you replied in a thread wherein theymos was warning not to post off-topic replies anywhere on the forum.  You confused this with the special forum which is named “Off-Topic” because it allows topics totally unrelated to Bitcoin.)

I think with the attitude you have displayed in some of your other posts, you have a good chance to learn and improve your skills and your posting.  That would benefit you, and benefit the forum community; incidentally, it would earn you some merit the honest way.  Too bad you kill your credibility by asking if it would “really work” to turn into a shameful beggar.  People who see that will avoid giving you merit—and by that, I mean the people who have very high merit, and thus might have sMerit to give.  Including myself.

What you are saying is, why have any local forums at all?

Actually, why have a forum at all?  Creating a similar forum for me would really not be a problem, yes?  And another one for you?

---

Prescribing any kind of censorship circumvention measure is problematic as for users in a country which blocks censorship circumvention measures.  Though there are always ongoing concerted efforts to keep Tor available to PRC (People’s Republic of China) users behind the GFW (“Great Firewall”—adverse nickname for PRC network censorship measures).  It’s an arm’s race.  And then, Chinese-through-Tor users would hit the reCAPTCHA problem I had:  “Google is locking Tor users out of Bitcointalk.org!”  I would suppose that some/many VPNs (as you suggest) might hit similar trouble, though I have not tried VPNs with this forum.

Here is an interesting bibliography, which includes references to many research papers written on GFW:
https://censorbib.nymity.ch/


Well, there’s your usual CAPTCHA arms race.

I myself would much prefer public-key authentication for login.  It’s a “crypto” forum, yet does not deploy basic cryptographic techniques for authentication!  Of course, this would make it trivial for bots to log in; and this returns to my unanswered question which I have asked many times upthread and elsewhere:  Is the purpose of the login CAPTCHA to stop login by bots, or to stop such bruteforcing of luser-selected passwords as may result in (more) so-called “hacked” accounts?

By the way, there is a(t least one) existing patent on a method for issuing fake or impossible CAPTCHAs to deny access to a service while pretending to allow access:
https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.google.com/patents/US9407661
(In other words:  A patent on a method of being a jerk and intentionally wasting people’s time, effort, and frustration.)


N.b. that the reference to typing on “a standard keyboard” unavoidably implies that the term “attacker device” includes humans (a/k/a not-a-robots).  The only conceivable purpose for serving an impossible CAPTCHA to not-a-robots (formerly known as humans) is to torment and lock out flesh-and-blood users on networks such as Tor.

Think of this, next time you see some error-comedy site post a screenshot of a “broken” CAPTCHA containing weird characters.  It’s not broken:  It’s sadistic and deceptive.

---

As linked above, some of us have trouble even getting a CAPTCHA—broken or otherwise.  Then when I can get a CAPTCHA, it steals time out of my life—60–90+s each time, mindlessly clicking pictures in servitude to a machine.

I myself have not yet received an unsolvable CAPTCHA on this forum.  Only either refusal to serve a CAPTCHA, or extremely drawn-out and tedious CAPTCHAs.


So would I—with the caveat that I would not pay more than I already have for Copper Membership.  If the purpose is a steeper anti-abuse fee which provides greater deterrent to abuse, then that shouldn’t be turned into a money-grab.  Doing so would be wrong, a squeezing of innocent people under false colour of stopping the wrong of spammers who treating this forum as a money-grab.

However, you raise a chicken-and-egg problem:  How does the forum know to whitelist a paid user at the login page?

I have a question about an accusation of mysterious identities; and I am looking for a totally random sockpuppet accusation thread in which I can post it.  This will do.

In response to this:


Thus spake Quicksy:


My question is:  Who the hell am I?  Seriously.  If I am discussed in threads from 2011, I most certainly want to know about that!

---

Purr.  ← PROOF that I am Lauda!

The message verifies with her key, signed 2018-02-23 16:59:32Z—but as you well know, there is no key included in the message.  Nor a fingerprint, nor a cross-certification from the 1Sexy Bitcoin key (1Sexyb1p8byGxunfTfHvL9SXsWqHyEPVk).

I’ve been getting Alia started with PGP; and though she’s a bright one, she’s still a PGP newbie.  Thus, newbie mistakes.  When I saw the post you quoted, I made it TODO to help Alia put together a post with a proper signed statement (containing useful information), cross-certification from 1Sexy, PGP fingerprint, and either the key itself or a link where same may be easily obtained.  Unfortunately, this is not yet done due to mutually busy schedules.

Meanwhile, I did not post in the other thread because I did not want to add noise; I suggested she edit the post when everything is put together.  I suppose I should have posted a note there.

Links, please.  I myself should like to see those threads of which you speak!  Or did you only hear from a reliable source close to the forum friend of a friend about such threads?

---

I will take you at your word, because you have something called “credibility” which is much missing from some parts of this thread.

But wait:  Does this mean that I may now take pride in my achievements as one of this forum’s most famous members, cheered by decent folks and hated by scammers and spammers?  Or does it mean that I must be jealous of myself?  I am so confused.

At least, now I know that I can actually trust you as I trust myself.

I got lucky, indeed!

As I said upthread, I did not request camming—only the gambling part.  We briefly discussed terms; I more or less just left it all to her discretion.  I then sent Alia a bit over 0.01 BTC.  It was a surprise thrill when my wallet notified me of a bit over 0.02 BTC incoming.  Alia told me that’s an unusually big win, and not to be expected.  Myself, I think that some of my special magic must have rubbed off in on her.

The best part:  I was a gambling virgin, and Alia took my cherry.

I’ve already taken that bet.  My ante is my good name—all the time and effort I have invested posting day and night with a forum account which has earned 490+ merits in less than a month since the start of the merit system—and all my future expectations of intellectual discussion, business, and pleasure on this forum.

For if you have this evidence, then you can instantly destroy not only Lauda’s reputation, but the reputations of all publicly committed Lauda-supporters—including me.

I picked sides here.  I did so after reading through old threads, and carefully considering what I found there.  And in picking sides, I made my wager.  At this point, I myself am so publicly committed to supporting Lauda that if you were to drop some shocking evidence which proves serious wrongdoing, I would probably need to leave this forum forever.  For unlike you, I have things called dignity and a sense of shame which would prevent me from hanging around in disgrace just to troll people.  Do you think I would want to stay here as a laughingstock like you?

So, ante up, Quicksy.  Show your evidence.  You can force me to leave—humiliate me (yes, I know how you thirst for that)—wreck my hopes, dreams, and plans.  I’ve got a budding Github repo which people respect, a plum domain name (nym.zone) I plan to use for such business as for which I’d need sterling credibility, and high status as the current #4 all-time most-merited Bitcoin Forum user.  Also, attentions of a hot girl.  If you’ve been speaking the truth, then you can take all that away from me.  Just drop the evidence on Lauda.

For your part, you already lost all your reputational wagers to the degree that you have pretty girls laughing at you and your comedic total lack of credibility:


I think I already won any possible bet.

Oh, and by the way:  Thanks so much for this particular object demonstration of how easily you make bold accusations, then turn around and flatly contradict yourself a few days later after everybody is laughing at you:



Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

Don’t feel bad.  A rare +4 from you inadvertently places you in good company with other known merit-ultraconservatives, including +10 from Lauda (twice), +3 from gmaxwell, and +1 from gmaxwell.

Apropos the topic, Vod, I think your advice would likely be meritorious on the subject of learning to write code which handles Other People’s Money.  Such a post by you would also repair the cosmic imbalance caused by your erroneous profligacy with merit.  Please, Vod Sir, help readers become enlightened by your experience on the topic.

I here stand guilty of high-quality-post farming and begging.  Why, I am so heinous that I offer to trade merit for a high-quality topical post!  Let the bizarro DD (Default Distrust) scammers and spammers now red-tag me.

Guilty as charged.

---

Evidence, please.

---

I do believe that you’re “not after with [sic] the merits”, insofar as you are neither interested in making meritorious posts yourself, nor participating in a forum with high S/N ratio where you could read many meritorious posts by others.  Your post history brims with bounties and useless trash.  You are here for the wrong reasons.  Don’t expect help with that.

---

Objection.  Assumes facts not in evidence...

---

...and moreover, factual assertions contradicted by the evidence.

---

Wow, the merit system is actually working!

---

Nice try.

---

Thinking aloud:  It is also a place for people to attempt gaining improper visibility for themselves.  Especially those who marked OP +50 or other absurd amounts.  Of course, that is not the only potential motivation; but the possibility must be considered, on the OP of a thread which thus far has >40000 reads and is onto its 158th page of replies.

This policy is conceptual and explanatory—not a binding promise, and not to be applied by me mechanistically.

Credit:  The concept (but not substance) hereof is loosely inspired in part by DannyHamilton’s merit sending policy.

The current version hereof is a working draft.  I expect that this post will be edited over time.  If/when I make significant modifications, I will archive old versions in some reasonable manner.

---

Positive trust feedback may be left by me in cases whereby:

0. I have observed a person’s character to the degree that I am willing to vouch that this person is trustworthy.  My judgments as such are extremely conservative.

1. I have engaged in a business partership with a person, or a business relation of similar magnitude, and found this person to be trustworthy.  If a definite amount of “risked BTC” can be objectively calculated, it will be stated in the amount field; otherwise, not.

2. I have risked a large amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and found it thus sound.  The amount will be stated in the amount field.

3a. I have repeatedly risked moderate amounts of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness over a long period of time, and found the person thus trustworthy.  This would add to and amplify earlier neutral feedback.

3b. I have risked a moderate amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and have seen other substantially impressive evidence of this person’s trustworthiness.  “Risked BTC” may be stated.

4. I know the person “in real life”, and find this person to be trustworthy.  Outside myself, I have no linkage between “IRL” and “nullius”; thus, this is inapplicable.  I put this here as a conceptual note.

General note:  I am extremely conservative in matters of trust.  I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly.  If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight.  It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world.  Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.

N.b. that as of the moment I write this, I have never yet left anybody positive trust feedback.  I may issue some positive feedback soon.

---

Neutral trust feedback may be left by me for:

0. Transactions in which I have risked a small or moderate amount of BTC on a person’s trustworthiness, and thus found it to be sound.  The amount will be stated in the pertinent field.  (Many such transactions over a long period of time may result in me also adding positive feedback, as stated above.)

1. Opinions or other statements about a person, which do not pertain to that person’s trustworthiness.

2. Statements about the technical competency of an individual.  E.g., “This person is a Bitcoin expert, whose posts in Dev & Tech may be relied upon for correctness.”

3. Evaluations of a person which may in some way pertain to trust, but of which I am not sufficiently certain to issue positive or negative feedback.  E.g., “This person seems trustworthy to me; but we are only now just getting to know each other.”

4. Something wrongful which previously resulted in negative feedback, which the person has so fully corrected that I deem not only material, but also moral debts to have been repaid.  Expect for this to be rare or nonexistent.  I am not a forgiving person.

---

Negative distrust feedback will be left by me in cases of dishonest or otherwise criminal behaviour:

• Scamming
• Spamming
• Abuse of the forum’s trust and/or merit systems:  Begging, “farming”, buying/selling, etc.
• Account selling; materially deceptive use of alts (in practice, most uses of alts).
• Theft
• Fraud
• Gossip, rumour-mongering, character assassination, misinformation, and disinformation (including mendacious promotion of scamforks).
• Crime, whether or not listed here, as defined by my own moral philosophy and not by local legislation.  (Committing crime; or condoning crime in some egregious manner which goes beyond expression of reasonable opinions.  Some examples which come to mind in this context:  Drug dealing, kidporn.)
• Threats of violence or other significant harm to innocent people.
• Doxing of an innocent person; improperly seeking identifying information about an innocent person; or otherwise violations of privacy.
• Improper or retaliatory negative trust feedback.
• Any other behaviour which shows manifest dishonesty, a reprehensible character, or otherwise untrustworthiness.

The easiest way to understand my negative feedback policy is to observe that each and all of the foregoing are sound reasons to declare, “I distrust this person!”

---

This topic is self-moderated.

Do not request removal of negative trust feedback here.  Such posts will be archived and deleted.  Discussions of specific instances of feedback belong in the Reputation forum, if there be any discussion to be had.

Anything else may be deleted at my sole discretion.