Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[TECSHARE]

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Offering escrow without a track record

If you want to offer the escrow service, you must first prove you can be trusted by having a track record of successful transaction from previous trade. This doesn't mean if you want to offer escrow service you should go around forum participating in trade just to get positive trust (gain reputation) doing so might attract red tag.

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"

When it says have good track record here's a possible guess,

You'd have to do other activities that would make you deemed trustworthy by someone. Then that person would approach you to act as an escrow for them. Then if you did a good job for them, they would recommend you to other people. After a while, you would have a good track record and have many to vouch for you. At that point, you can offer it yourself. That's my guess, at least. It kinda has to drop in your lap, at first.

Offering escrow service means you're officially announcing your availability to hold fund for large number of users therefore, if you don't have a positive track record for doing that for one or two users unofficially plus other previous successful trade records don't jump right into offering escrow service.

And who makes the determination how much reputation is enough before escrowing? Is this really what you want on this forum? A nanny state where a bunch of bored OCD people run around tagging people for whatever they deem offensive inserting themselves between people otherwise willing to make a voluntary exchange?

The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings. This is the only viable solution to all of these issues that is done in a manner consistent with existing community review, decentralization, and most importantly would end the majority of trust rating disputes before they ever happen.

[madnessteat]

I saw that in this topic is reported on users who have several alternative accounts and participate in different bounty. Do such accounts also get a negative (red) trust?

[suchmoon]

I saw that in this topic is reported on users who have several alternative accounts and participate in different bounty. Do such accounts also get a negative (red) trust?

If bounty rules don't allow multiple entries by the same user then using alts means cheating the bounty. Sounds like a scam.

[marlboroza]

I saw that in this topic is reported on users who have several alternative accounts and participate in different bounty. Do such accounts also get a negative (red) trust?

That is known alts of any one, it is not really related to people who are cheating bounties but there are many connected accounts which are cheating bounties. And what suchmoon said above.

[mikeywith]

That is known alts of any one.

+ i wouldn't take everything in that thread seriously.

[poochpocket]

That is known alts of any one.

+ i wouldn't take everything in that thread seriously.

+1 Me too. I have seen much of the wrong assumptions there!

[goemonnuovo]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

Carryout a security research like change of password adding to @TheNewAnon135246 information (of change of email) and if it comes out positive, go ahead and red tag him but if change of password is negative then give him a red tag and if he can prove he's the owner of the account the red tag will be deleted. The red tag will serve as a warning to prove ownership of account that way you'll get his attention.

Also you should info him via trust feedback that if he can proof ownership of account red tag will be removed.

Looks hacked.

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=goemon888 password changed twice https://i.imgur.com/o11MHGk.png at exactly the same time on different days?

They should be able to prove it by signing with 1Hxwh8zriyhXGZC5GXGMXm9ym5fgrJDqwz
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23449.msg294515#msg294515
https://archive.fo/IBN5d

Or with his dogecoin address:

D63S4WZtmBMxfbNqA8UTGwLsdL1hqPzsNZ

https://archive.fo/PSFGY
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365665.msg3904382#msg3904382

https://multidoge.org/help/v0.1/help_signAndVerifyMessage.html

thanks! I saw today that my account was hacked, and found this topic whit my username (goemon888).. Thank you for finding my addresses, now I can recover the account; can I use the doge address to sign the message?
thanks

[xtraelv]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

Carryout a security research like change of password adding to @TheNewAnon135246 information (of change of email) and if it comes out positive, go ahead and red tag him but if change of password is negative then give him a red tag and if he can prove he's the owner of the account the red tag will be deleted. The red tag will serve as a warning to prove ownership of account that way you'll get his attention.

Also you should info him via trust feedback that if he can proof ownership of account red tag will be removed.

Looks hacked.

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=goemon888 password changed twice at exactly the same time on different days?

They should be able to prove it by signing with 1Hxwh8zriyhXGZC5GXGMXm9ym5fgrJDqwz
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23449.msg294515#msg294515
https://archive.fo/IBN5d

Or with his dogecoin address:

D63S4WZtmBMxfbNqA8UTGwLsdL1hqPzsNZ

https://archive.fo/PSFGY
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365665.msg3904382#msg3904382

https://multidoge.org/help/v0.1/help_signAndVerifyMessage.html

thanks! I saw today that my account was hacked, and found this topic whit my username (goemon888).. Thank you for finding my addresses, now I can recover the account; can I use the doge address to sign the message?
thanks

Good to see you have made progress recovering your hacked account. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118712.msg50248188#msg50248188

[Vod]

What about users that claim to have coin, but refuse to prove it?

Example:
Giving away $500,000 in bitcoin if you download their app

[nutildah]

To me this is the best clear-cut guidelines for DT behavior. It seems fair and comprehensive.

However, I wanted to get additional input on these two items:

ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Colluding *subjective

Short of concrete evidence that alts are being used to bump a thread, what constitutes as "proof" of an alt?

I look for:

- same style of writing, vocabulary, use of BBcode and general formatting of post
- registration date (suspected alts registered within minutes of each other is pretty compelling)
- concentration of posts in the same section(s)
- replies to own comments frequently

I'd like to tag some thread bumping alts, some of which are doing so for promotion and some which are doing so for the purposes of FUD. Because they are alts (or so I strongly suspect) they aren't self-bumping threads per se, so they're not breaking any forum rules.

I reported about 50 instances of spamming with alts (using my Russian bump bot ring thread as proof/evidence) and they were all marked good. Yet none of their posts were deleted, and only a couple of them were banned (and for other reasons).

So, they're not explicitly breaking forum rules, and you shouldn't tag somebody just for being an alt, but for the purposes of ceaselessly hyping a project or relentlessly trying to discredit it I think a tag is deserved.

Here's an example from the FUD side:

I HAVE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING INTERNAL INFORMATION WHO WANTS TO BE ANONYMOUS.

Nimiq signed a deal with WAG Bank to PAY 1 MILLION DOLLAR FOR 9.9% OF WEG Bank with an evaluation of a "bank" of only 10 million dollars. But the deal is not in Fiat or Eth or BTC. The deal was in Nimiq. Because team nimiq didn't own enough coins just 10% of the 1 million USD deal in nimiq, they started buying coins from the market on HitBTC. The entire pump is caused only by NIMIQ / WEG BANK buying over ~ 1 billion coins from the market. This is the sure way to lose money: buy your own coin buying high and selling low.

Wow. This smells so much like market manipulation bullshit. Also possible insider trading. I wonder how high they will try to pump their shitcoin.

Facts proved about price manipulation

1. Trading Bot was proven by bitcointalk and confirmed after Robin Linus asked them publicly to tell to the community if they run trading bots, and they said YES

2. They confirmed that they acquired coins from the market to pay community projects. Btw here are the community projects? Does any of them work? Is one working? Is any of them used by anybody

3. They confirmed that every month they acquire coins worth $35,000 to pay for developers.

4. They acquired 9.9% of WEG Bank. So they invested over 1 million dollar buying coins from the market

5. They announced that the WEG Bank acquisition is under NDA. Although we know that they acquired 9.9% for 1 million dollar investment, they don't want to tell us.

Annoying, right? They've done this literally hundreds of times between their 3 accounts. I actually don't care/know if Nimiq is a scam or not but that's besides the point.

What do you guys think?

[TheBeardedBaby]

Bumping this thread with one dilemma.

Some of you may know already about this case >
[POS/MN] ONEX Oneexbit coin is NOT A SCAM but FULLY WASH TRADING on CryptoBridge

Just to sum it all, the ONEX coin was using bots to trade the coin only to increase the trading volume and fool investors.
This was also confirmed by their team >

Good day, my name is Maxim Zorin
I am the CEO of OneExBit project
You we put a negative review in the subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129693.new#new
let me explain the situation
we are one of the few projects with his finished product on the masternode the market. we do not deceive anyone, our faces are open, we develop a good and high-quality product anyone can download our terminal and use it. https://oneexbit.com/
about trading bots, we have bots, but bots trade 100 percent of projects and exchanges.
Those people who are trying to throw mud at us are real scammers who offered us to collect a lot of money and the abyss without opening faces.

we refused them and now their task is to destroy our project.
here razoblachitelny document which I mean they published

If there is an evos investor here, then the information below is for you.

dear evos investors - they are scammers
this link tells the story of how the scammers tried to deceive the Onex team and presents the data of these people

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZkpE72Zk7JaT_CeyHBGH8L3cDrfcZY8_HOF30RHSDY/edit

I ask you to understand the situation and remove from us the stigma of fraud, we are living people in a working product, we do not deceive anyone.

that's why they're trying to mud us.

Personally for me, if you are trying to fake something you are no longer trustworthy, but seems like using bots to keep the trading volume up is not uncommon for many different coins and exchanges.

Here is one analysis of the whole crypto market from a few days ago. > https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/05/28/up-to-86-of-total-reported-cryptocurrency-trading-volume-is-likely-fake-according-to-analysis-of-exchange-website-visits/

Even the big exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex do it.

About 86% of the trading volume looks to be fake with 65% of that total real volume originating on Binance and Bitfinex, both of which have virtually no regulatory oversight

So here is the dilemma, is this a fraudulent behavior and does it deserve the red paint or not?
Shall we pursue everyone using bots to increase their coin's volume traffic and the exchanges allowing this?

More readings on the case >
- https://medium.com/@sylvainartplayribes/chasing-fake-volume-a-crypto-plague-ea1a3c1e0b5e
- https://hackernoon.com/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-wash-trading-in-crypto-fec3611d4f4a

[Lauda]

So here is the dilemma, is this a fraudulent behavior and does it deserve the red paint or not?
Shall we pursue everyone using bots to increase their coin's volume traffic and the exchanges allowing this?

1) Not all bots are wash-trading bots; wash-trading bots are likely a minority as they can easily create the required volume.
2) No one involved in the project can prevent others from doing this with their coin/token.
3) It warrants a negative rating only if:
a) There is sufficient evidence that there are bots wash trading and,
b) There is proof/admission/etc. that the team is behind this.

[LoyceV]

Even the big exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex do it.

About 86% of the trading volume looks to be fake with 65% of that total real volume originating on Binance and Bitfinex, both of which have virtually no regulatory oversight

My interpretation is different: based on this, I'd say Binance and Bitfinex only have real trading volume, and together they handle 65% of the real market volume.

[TheBeardedBaby]

So here is the dilemma, is this a fraudulent behavior and does it deserve the red paint or not?
Shall we pursue everyone using bots to increase their coin's volume traffic and the exchanges allowing this?

1) Not all bots are wash-trading bots; wash-trading bots are likely a minority as they can easily create the required volume.
2) No one involved in the project can prevent others from doing this with their coin/token.
3) It warrants a negative rating only if:
a) There is sufficient evidence that there are bots wash trading and,
b) There is proof/admission/etc. that the team is behind this.

I was also condenser if someone want to harm your project can just he can just set up a few bots and done.
Thank you Lauda, this is a whole new field for me, and I don't have time to deeply learn all the related matter, I should tho.

Even the big exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex do it.

About 86% of the trading volume looks to be fake with 65% of that total real volume originating on Binance and Bitfinex, both of which have virtually no regulatory oversight

My interpretation is different: based on this, I'd say Binance and Bitfinex only have real trading volume, and together they handle 65% of the real market volume.

Damn I read it at least 3 times, and this "both of which have virtually no regulatory oversight" made me think that they also shows fake volumes but are correct.
BTW here is the total analysis if anyone is interested in > https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901-5574233-185408.pdf

[TECSHARE]

What community? You people NEED to give yourselves a sense of value by creating an ever expandable list of "crimes" for you to go after. While you pretend to serve the community all you are doing is systematically making everyone subject to a gigantic list of arbitrary selective enforcement that rots what is left of this dying community from the inside. Hey, but what is important is you have a shiny badge and you feel authoritative.

[xtraelv]

I've added some quotes by Theymos regarding his views on trust to the original post. They appear to be in line with the majority of what was discussed here.