===►Maidak scammed me 400$ BTC,this time is for sure===►

[hilariousandco]

Seems a bit silly that he's leaving negative on a few people. I'd concentrate on repaying the money you owe rather than leaving unjust retaliatory feedback as you're not doing yourself any favours and if/when you do pay it back those people will be less likely to remove the feedback they left.

How much and to who does he owe now? Has he made any promises as to when the money will be returned?

[1714920795]

1714920795

[1714920795]

1714920795

[1714920795]

1714920795

[BitcoinDistributor]

rofl at his blackmail type trust postings on others walls.

[DjVoodo]

He keeps saying i will pay all the debts, his saying, but he never contact me to tell me to wait or anything else. Why should everybody remove his feedback? Until we, the ones that got scammed by this guy, will not post here that the problem was resolved, nobody should remove nothing. Doesn't matter how good he was before, now he is just another scammer, and we talk about $4-5k's, not $400-500

[Quickseller]

It looks like Maidak's OTC profile has a rating from someone who claims that Maidak owes him $10,000. I am not sure how reputable that person is. The rating was sent to Maidak's profile on August 17 (roughly a week ago)

[Klomann]

Did he refunded anyone yet?

[allyouracid]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

[Muhammed Zakir]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

What if the users involved in trade is not in default trust list? People in default trust must leave feedback so others can know atleast when they see negative trust score.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

What about trust spam? If all trusts are weighed equally, then how can we prevent trust spam? Keeping trust feedback moderated? How can we prevent abuse of trust moderators, then? What you said is not plausible but if you have a better idea which I(& others) may have missed, feel free to post in Meta.

If you want to continue discussion, please post in Meta.

[hilariousandco]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

You know what I completely dislike? Scammers. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. You think scammers should only be marked as one if they scam someone on default trust? That's unlikely to happen. You can also remove  the trusts of anyone you wish. If you were to do it for everyone who has left him feedback but hasn't traded with him then maidak would look like an angel with many positive trusts. If it wasn't for those negative feedbacks on him he likely would still be trying to scam money and from his last post it looks like he's still trying to trade which is very alarming not to mention what QS posted above (and even if it's not true he still currently owes several thousand dollars so the feedback is entirely appropriate).

[allyouracid]

Muhammed: I didn't say it would be easy to find a better solution. Maybe it could be tied to the reputation. I don't know, but there are many reports of the current system being used inappropriately.
Also, I don't think there is need for another complaint thread in the meta section; I'll restrict it to my few posts here, trying not to hijack the thread.

hilariousandco: don't get me wrong, I also hate scammers. Imho, they're contributing a large part to Bitcoin not becoming mainstream, soon. But think of the way the board handles scammers: they don't, because they want to let things sort out themselves. If people know this, they can handle it.
But on the other hand, if they should be able to spot scammers themselves, they should also be able to read the feedback of users before doing a trade.

I don't know, it just feels wrong to me if people complain about a trade they aren't even involved in. I hope you understand what I mean.


Anyway, I really hope the OP gets things sorted, so those who gave him money get it back. He seems honest about trying to clear things up; however he could have told people about his situation way earlier (yes, I read the whole thread) and - I agree with you on that, hilariousandco - he shouldn't have made deals he knew he couldn't fill.
I hope my position is a bit clearer, now.

[tspacepilot]

What I completely dislike in this forum is when everyone - especially those on the default trust list - jump in to leave negative feedback for deals they have absolutely nothing to do with.
In my opinion, this is also some kind of abuse of power. I don't want to attack anyone here; I just want to leave my opinion.

The only ones leaving negative feedback here should be those who were involved in the trades, and no one else. There is no need for some sort of altruistic Samaritans jumping in on any situation possible.
This makes the reputation system flawed, misleading and a direct invitation for abuse. Actually, there should be an option to hide the trust data of any user, and it should be hidden by default.

Also, the default list should not exist. There should be some other way to define if a user's rating matters or not.

You know what I completely dislike? Scammers. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. You think scammers should only be marked as one if they scam someone on default trust? That's unlikely to happen. You can also remove  the trusts of anyone you wish. If you were to do it for everyone who has left him feedback but hasn't traded with him then maidak would look like an angel with many positive trusts. If it wasn't for those negative feedbacks on him he likely would still be trying to scam money and from his last post it looks like he's still trying to trade which is very alarming not to mention what QS posted above (and even if it's not true he still currently owes several thousand dollars so the feedback is entirely appropriate).

It's actually not ridiculous.  What is ridiculous in my opinion is that anyone would lend thousands of dollars to someone without doing their own due dilligence.  In my opinion it's ridiculous to lend large somes of money without escrow based on the red or green text under an account on a forum on the internet. The idea that only default trust can protect us from the wrongs of scammers is, in my opinion, a cause of more problems because it promotes and teaches the idea that someone is out there to protect you when you're trading bitcoin when in fact you need to do your homework and use escrow and protect yourself.

In theory, everyone is supposed to build their own trust network.  See this post by Legendary staff member dserrano5: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.0

The phenomenon of 40 trust rangers looking to jockey their way onto the default trust list by aping each other's feedback blindly has led to a mob-mentality of judgment where no one wants to stick their neck or or argue against the prevailing wind as blown by whoever started the most recent lynch mob.  I fail to see how this evironment prevents scammers, yet this is what will be shouted out me now in response to my arrogance of questioning the received truths of those on default trust and the trust-rangers jockeying to be the next in the blessed list.

[Panthers52]

Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?

Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.

How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked?

Most often times, people who advocate for the weakening of the trust system are either scammers or have plans to scam in the future.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

[tspacepilot]

Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?

Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.

How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked?

Panthers52, Perhaps I was misunderstood (or perhaps I misunderstood something myself).  My point was that once Maidak had scammed, the people who were scammed would have added their rating and their references and any further traders with Maidak who were responsible sane people would do due dilligence before loaning to him and would have seen his recent breach of trust and thought twice about it.  As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

Most often times, people who advocate for the weakening of the trust system are either scammers or have plans to scam in the future.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

Evidence for this?

People have used this kind of unsupported reasoning in the past, but that doesn't make it any more valid now than it was then.  Criticism of the implementation of the trust system is not equal to "trying to weaken" the trust system.  I don't think it's fair to say that because I have an issue with the trust-abuse I've seen on this forum that that amounts to evidence that I'm planning to scam anyone.  This kind of reasoning is called "ad hominem" because it attempts to undermine the person giving an argument rather than addressing the argument.

Cheers!

[hilariousandco]

It's actually not ridiculous.  What is ridiculous in my opinion is that anyone would lend thousands of dollars to someone without doing their own due dilligence.  In my opinion it's ridiculous to lend large somes of money without escrow based on the red or green text under an account on a forum on the internet. The idea that only default trust can protect us from the wrongs of scammers is, in my opinion, a cause of more problems because it promotes and teaches the idea that someone is out there to protect you when you're trading bitcoin when in fact you need to do your homework and use escrow and protect yourself.

In theory, everyone is supposed to build their own trust network.  See this post by Legendary staff member dserrano5: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.0

The phenomenon of 40 trust rangers looking to jockey their way onto the default trust list by aping each other's feedback blindly has led to a mob-mentality of judgment where no one wants to stick their neck or or argue against the prevailing wind as blown by whoever started the most recent lynch mob.  I fail to see how this evironment prevents scammers, yet this is what will be shouted out me now in response to my arrogance of questioning the received truths of those on default trust and the trust-rangers jockeying to be the next in the blessed list.

You're starting to sound exactly like tecshare. It is ridiculous. Like Panthers52 said the feedback system is there so people can make their own mind up and whether someone has red or green is only a guide and you should investigate further by reading their actual feedbacks but the warning trade with extreme caution is exactly what people should see on him given the circumstances. People can still trade with maidak if they wish and they should make their own mind up whether to do so, but they would be silly to do that without an escrow. If it wasn't for the feedback from default trust members maidak would still be in the green and appear highly trusted and I'm sure he would have just continued to collect as much money as he could using his rep as a scamming tool which is exactly what he did until he was hampered by the feedback he received when it was brought to peoples' attention.

As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

If maidak only had two negative feedbacks from relative unknowns you know as well as I do they would likely be ignored or overlooked. Many people especially newbs don't even know or check the untrusted section so a lot of good that will do them. There's no issue at all with the feedback here and you wouldn't be complaining had he stole thousands from you. As it stands maidak has stolen several thousands of dollars and that is quite a substantial amount and the warnings that are there are wholly appropriate.

[tspacepilot]

It's actually not ridiculous.  What is ridiculous in my opinion is that anyone would lend thousands of dollars to someone without doing their own due dilligence.  In my opinion it's ridiculous to lend large somes of money without escrow based on the red or green text under an account on a forum on the internet. The idea that only default trust can protect us from the wrongs of scammers is, in my opinion, a cause of more problems because it promotes and teaches the idea that someone is out there to protect you when you're trading bitcoin when in fact you need to do your homework and use escrow and protect yourself.

In theory, everyone is supposed to build their own trust network.  See this post by Legendary staff member dserrano5: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.0

The phenomenon of 40 trust rangers looking to jockey their way onto the default trust list by aping each other's feedback blindly has led to a mob-mentality of judgment where no one wants to stick their neck or or argue against the prevailing wind as blown by whoever started the most recent lynch mob.  I fail to see how this evironment prevents scammers, yet this is what will be shouted out me now in response to my arrogance of questioning the received truths of those on default trust and the trust-rangers jockeying to be the next in the blessed list.

You're starting to sound exactly like tecshare.

Such a statement doesn't amount to an argument against me, or techshare for that matter.  It's a special type of ad hominem.  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[snip]
 If it wasn't for the feedback from default trust members maidak would still be in the green and appear highly trusted and I'm sure he would have just continued to collect as much money as he could using his rep as a scamming tool which is exactly what he did until he was hampered by the feedback he received when it was brought to peoples' attention.

^^ Emphasis mine.  My argument is that this is ridiculous: the idea that people will loan large amounts of money based on a red or green text under a username on an internet forum.

As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

If maidak only had two negative feedbacks from relative unknowns you know as well as I do they would likely be ignored or overlooked. Many people especially newbs don't even know or check the untrusted section so a lot of good that will do them. There's no issue at all with the feedback here and you wouldn't be complaining had he stole thousands from you. As it stands maidak has stolenfailed to repay several thousands of dollars and that is quite a substantial amount and the warnings that are there are wholly appropriate.

FTFY.  Indeed it is a substantial amount.  Indeed, it is a shameful situation.  However, I don't see how the vultures circling with their mindless feedbacks and their mob-mentality of justice helps the situation.  In the best case at this point, Maidak will make a repayment plan and fulfill it.  How does many, many echoed feedbacks help him acheive this.  All I can see that it does is that it poeple start posting in meta that "I neg-repped Maidak before you therefore I am the new Vod."  Someone else replies "I have given out 50 negative feedbacks this week, if I were on default trust, no one would ever be scammed!"  These kinds of arguments are clearly spurious and, as I have said, I believe it weakens the culture of the forum to promote the idea that people don't have to think for themselves before trading or sending money to someone---the idea that a green light on an internet forum is a reason to forget caveat emptor and close your brain.  And that's the culture I'm complaining about, one where a mob of people rushes to neg-rep anyone and everyone for some false promise of a world without scams.  Then, people who get trampled in the stampede are just the collateral damage.

[Quickseller]

Maidak has repeatedly been trusted with many thousands of dollars over the years. He had a reputation of being someone who could be trusted with $10k without having to worry about your money. If it were not for the negative trust he received then he would still have the reputation that he could be trusted with large amounts.

The reason why Maidak was able to scam as much as he did was because people neglected to report his scams. After he accepted the money from the guy he owes $5k to, someone else had sent him several thousand dollars to him but never sent the bitcoin, it was reported a few weeks later, maidak received negative trust, then he repaid that person (probably hoping to be able to accept even more money from someone else). As it stands prior to the creation of this thread, if someone were to have done their due diligence they would have seen that sending maidak $10k would not be a risky move. If it was not for the trust system setup the way it is then someone doing their due diligence would see this thread as nothing more then an extortion attempt and/or someone trolling maidak.

I have not seen one thread in meta created to brag about how many people they sent negative trust to.

Woodcollector has gone as far to essentially admit to scamming people yet tecshare still defends him and says that wood collector is not a scammer

[hilariousandco]

You're starting to sound exactly like tecshare.

Such a statement doesn't amount to an argument against me, or techshare for that matter.  It's a special type of ad hominem.  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

It does, because exactly like tecshare your off topic and irrational arguments are biased by your previous experiences of the feedback system and it's the only reason you're complaining here, just like tecshare. Never a peep about feedback until both of your incidents then you both start shitting all over the place any time you can. It's annoying and only makes people lose respect for you.

[snip]
 If it wasn't for the feedback from default trust members maidak would still be in the green and appear highly trusted and I'm sure he would have just continued to collect as much money as he could using his rep as a scamming tool which is exactly what he did until he was hampered by the feedback he received when it was brought to peoples' attention.

^^ Emphasis mine.  My argument is that this is ridiculous: the idea that people will loan large amounts of money based on a red or green text under a username on an internet forum.

So how else are people supposed to decide who they can and can't deal with? If it wasn't for the feedback system nobody would have anything to help them decide who can be trusted with what.

As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

If maidak only had two negative feedbacks from relative unknowns you know as well as I do they would likely be ignored or overlooked. Many people especially newbs don't even know or check the untrusted section so a lot of good that will do them. There's no issue at all with the feedback here and you wouldn't be complaining had he stole thousands from you. As it stands maidak has stolenfailed to repay several thousands of dollars and that is quite a substantial amount and the warnings that are there are wholly appropriate.

FTFY.

Oh do shut up. You're being ridiculous not to mention annoying now. He's stolen money. You can't rob a bank then say "I'll pay it back when I can" so everything is gravy. He's stolen money. End of. If he pays it back the politest thing I'll be able to say about him was he deceivingly took out several interest free loans on his own terms to try get himself out of trouble, which is still dishonest and scammy and he wont be trusted with money again that's for sure.

Indeed it is a substantial amount.  Indeed, it is a shameful situation.  However, I don't see how the vultures circling with their mindless feedbacks and their mob-mentality of justice helps the situation.

You don't see how it helps? Who else has been scammed by maidak on here since he was given the appropriate feedback? It helps because he's unlikely to scam more money from people.

In the best case at this point, Maidak will make a repayment plan and fulfill it.  How does many, many echoed feedbacks help him acheive this.  

Yes, that's the best case scenario but how he manages to pay it back is irrelevant. Don't scam money from people then he wouldn't be in this situation. The feedback is there in an attempt to put a stop to his behaviour. So far so good, but like QS said had it been put there earlier he likely would have gotten away with a lot less.

All I can see that it does is that it poeple start posting in meta that "I neg-repped Maidak before you therefore I am the new Vod."

And this is why you are exactly like tecshare. You talk about ad hominems but why are you complaining about people trying to be the new vod? Completely irrelevant and off topic, and exactly what tecshare did every single time and it was just his way of attacking those on default trust for trying to do the right thing. It's pathetic. If you don't want to get compared to tecshare then don't do exactly the same thing he did by trying to demonise people for using the feedback system appropriately all because you fell fowl of it.

[tspacepilot]

You're starting to sound exactly like tecshare.

Such a statement doesn't amount to an argument against me, or techshare for that matter.  It's a special type of ad hominem.  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

It does, because exactly like tecshare your off topic and irrational arguments are biased by your previous experiences of the feedback system and it's the only reason you're complaining here, just like tecshare. Never a peep about feedback until both of your incidents then you both start shitting all over the place any time you can. It's annoying and only makes people lose respect for you.

Actually, I made several posts about this kind of trust-rangering previous to my "incident" (where, by "incident" you mean a particular trust-ranger attempting a character assasination attack with several alts and threats and all kinds of nasty behavior).  Anyway, if you want to make such a statement, it's important to get the facts straight.  I was complaining about the trust-rangers long before QS attacked me.  Vod and I were able to have several discussions about it which didn't escalate to name-calling or false accusations, or anything else.  I think it's important for you to try to maintain that here.  I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with your ideas.  Saying that "this makes me just like techshare" is indeed a fallacious logic, a red herring. I don't see what techshare has to do with my ideas and I don't appreciate you attempting to discredit me by (false) association with somene who's not in this conversation.

[snip]
 If it wasn't for the feedback from default trust members maidak would still be in the green and appear highly trusted and I'm sure he would have just continued to collect as much money as he could using his rep as a scamming tool which is exactly what he did until he was hampered by the feedback he received when it was brought to peoples' attention.

^^ Emphasis mine.  My argument is that this is ridiculous: the idea that people will loan large amounts of money based on a red or green text under a username on an internet forum.

So how else are people supposed to decide who they can and can't deal with? If it wasn't for the feedback system nobody would have anything to help them decide who can be trusted with what.

As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

If maidak only had two negative feedbacks from relative unknowns you know as well as I do they would likely be ignored or overlooked. Many people especially newbs don't even know or check the untrusted section so a lot of good that will do them. There's no issue at all with the feedback here and you wouldn't be complaining had he stole thousands from you. As it stands maidak has stolenfailed to repay several thousands of dollars and that is quite a substantial amount and the warnings that are there are wholly appropriate.

FTFY.

Oh do shut up. You're being ridiculous not to mention annoying now. He's stolen money. You can't rob a bank then say "I'll pay it back when I can" so everything is gravy. He's stolen money. End of. If he pays it back the politest thing I'll be able to say about him was he deceivingly took out several interest free loans on his own terms to try get himself out of trouble, which is still dishonest and scammy and he wont be trusted with money again that's for sure.

  Well, it's starting to seem like politeness maybe isn't your strong suit.  But, and please understand that this is only my opinion, I really don't see that "robbing a bank" (a violent crime) is the same thing as failing to repay a loan.  And, again, in my opinion, the escalating theatrics don't help anyone.

Indeed it is a substantial amount.  Indeed, it is a shameful situation.  However, I don't see how the vultures circling with their mindless feedbacks and their mob-mentality of justice helps the situation.

You don't see how it helps? Who else has been scammed by maidak on here since he was given the appropriate feedback? It helps because he's unlikely to scam more money from people.

This is not logically valid.  I'm sorry if you think I keep harping on this, but in my opinion, rational thought is important.  This particular fallacy is called "post hoc ergo propter hoc".  The idea that because A occured before B, that means that A caused B. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

In the best case at this point, Maidak will make a repayment plan and fulfill it.  How does many, many echoed feedbacks help him acheive this.  

Yes, that's the best case scenario but how he manages to pay it back is irrelevant. Don't scam money from people then he wouldn't be in this situation.

It seems weird that you'd say that "how he manages to repay it is irrelevant" (robbing a bank?), but then again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding whatever point you're making here.

The feedback is there in an attempt to put a stop to his behaviour. So far so good, but like QS said had it been put there earlier he likely would have gotten away with a lot less.

That's unsubstantiated speculation.  But I repsect you and QS' right to speculate.  I hope you can respect my right to disagree.

All I can see that it does is that it poeple start posting in meta that "I neg-repped Maidak before you therefore I am the new Vod."

And this is why you are exactly like tecshare. You talk about ad hominems but why are you complaining about people trying to be the new vod?

FYI, the ad hominem fallacy is when you attack the person instead of the idea.  I didn't attack you personally.  And mentioning Vods name in quoted speech isn't attacking Vod.  This is misdirection.  As I said above, while Vod and I disagreed often, we had very resectful disagreements and didn't call each other names and even exchanged PMs from time to time about some of the issues with the trust system.

Completely irrelevant and off topic, and exactly what tecshare did every single time and it was just his way of attacking those on default trust for trying to do the right thing.

Well, perhaps I'm in the wrong here.  But when I look upthread I see that allyouracid made a post about how so many people uninvolved in the situation were negrepping Maidak and you wrote that he was "ridiculous".  I happen to agree with allyouracid and to disagree with you. I'm sorry you see my opinion as pathetic.  I don't know what else to say though.  If it's okay for allyouracid to talk about this, and it's okay for you to call him ridiculous, why isn't it okay for me to say "I don't think it's ridiculous at all."?

It's pathetic. If you don't want to get compared to tecshare then don't do exactly the same thing he did by trying to demonise people for using the feedback system appropriately all because you fell fowl of it.

Perhaps by "fell fowl of it" you mean "were abused by someone jockeying for power on it".  Anyway, I agree that things seem to have gone afield of the original conversation.  I hope you can try to respect my right to disagree with you.  I respect your right to your opinion and you'll note that I haven't resorted to calling you names or insulting you.

Best,

--TSP

[Panthers52]

Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?

Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.

How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked?

Panthers52, Perhaps I was misunderstood (or perhaps I misunderstood something myself).  My point was that once Maidak had scammed, the people who were scammed would have added their rating and their references and any further traders with Maidak who were responsible sane people would do due dilligence before loaning to him and would have seen his recent breach of trust and thought twice about it.  As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

New users may not be able to judge the evidence that is being presented. This is why more experienced traders are in the default trust network as they are more able to accurately come to the conclusion that someone has scammed in the past. There are plenty of baseless accusations out there and without the trust system inexperienced users would not be able to conclude who should be trusted and who should not be.

You need to remember that scammers also like to create and purchase a lot of accounts and use such accounts to give trust to themselves; without the default trust network, it would be easy for scammers to make themselves look like it is appropriate to trust them with larger amounts of money (or any amount of money).

I think it is very strange that dooglus is in the business of selling trust to scammers. How much interest did you give him for that loan? IMO someone on default trust should not be selling trust and they should be removed once it is exposed they are selling trust. Maybe it is that dooglus has no ethical issues with exploiting sites with vulnerabilities/bugs in them. 

The point is that the current trust system has made it much more difficult for someone to come to the conclusion that maidak should be trusted with large amounts of money.

BTW maidak did not take out any kind of loan. He took bitcoin and agreed to give his trading partners a similar amount of fiat back plus or minus some percentage (his commission for buying the bitcoin), however he did not follow through on his end of the deal. It could not be any more clear that he stole money from the two people in question.

Most often times, people who advocate for the weakening of the trust system are either scammers or have plans to scam in the future.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

Evidence for this?

$username, candystripes, you, Woodcollector, DaDice just to name a few. They all have either farmed trust, fought for a weaker trust system or both. All are scammers, some were exposed later in their crusade then others.

People have used this kind of unsupported reasoning in the past, but that doesn't make it any more valid now than it was then.  Criticism of the implementation of the trust system is not equal to "trying to weaken" the trust system.  I don't think it's fair to say that because I have an issue with the trust-abuse I've seen on this forum that that amounts to evidence that I'm planning to scam anyone.  This kind of reasoning is called "ad hominem" because it attempts to undermine the person giving an argument rather than addressing the argument.

Cheers!

The suggestion of how to "fix" the implementation of the trust system would certainly weaken the trust system, this is without any doubt. As I documented above, the people making these arguments are scammers, without exception. Even maidak was asking for his trust rating to be returned to normal so he can trade to earn enough to repay the people he stole from. When this didn't happen he tried to trade with people by bumping his currency exchange thread once, but he was really never active after that

BTW - it is very difficult to make an on-topic reply to your off-topic posts. I am not an expert on the posting etiquette on this forum, but on other forums it might be more appropriate to post your comments that are off topic in a more appropriate thread.

Kind Regards
Panthers52   

[tspacepilot]

Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?

Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.

How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked?

Panthers52, Perhaps I was misunderstood (or perhaps I misunderstood something myself).  My point was that once Maidak had scammed, the people who were scammed would have added their rating and their references and any further traders with Maidak who were responsible sane people would do due dilligence before loaning to him and would have seen his recent breach of trust and thought twice about it.  As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today.  I see that argument as flawed.

New users may not be able to judge the evidence that is being presented. This is why more experienced traders are in the default trust network as they are more able to accurately come to the conclusion that someone has scammed in the past. There are plenty of baseless accusations out there and without the trust system inexperienced users would not be able to conclude who should be trusted and who should not be.

I understand this argument.  However, I don't agree with your conclusions.  I hope you can respect that.

You need to remember that scammers also like to create and purchase a lot of accounts and use such accounts to give trust to themselves; without the default trust network, it would be easy for scammers to make themselves look like it is appropriate to trust them with larger amounts of money (or any amount of money).

Yes, and some people (surprisingly enough) are selling these default trust accounts for profit.  How does that affect your trust in the "default trust" network?

I think it is very strange that dooglus is in the business of selling trust to scammers. How much interest did you give him for that loan? IMO someone on default trust should not be selling trust and they should be removed once it is exposed they are selling trust. Maybe it is that dooglus has no ethical issues with exploiting sites with vulnerabilities/bugs in them. 

I think it's very strange that you accuse me of being off topic but here you seem to be talking about something completely unrelated.  If you have questions about dooglus or a loan he gave me, or anything along those lines, perhaps you should PM either of us, or start a thread about your questions if you want them to be public.

The suggestion of how to "fix" the implementation of the trust system would certainly weaken the trust system, this is without any doubt.

This is an assertion, not an argument.  I hope it's okay for me to disagree with your assertion.

BTW - it is very difficult to make an on-topic reply to your off-topic posts. I am not an expert on the posting etiquette on this forum, but on other forums it might be more appropriate to post your comments that are off topic in a more appropriate thread.

Unpopular is not the same thing as off-topic.  allyouracid wrote about people uninvolved in the situation giving many repetitious negative feedbacks.  He was called ridiculous and was diagreed with.  I happen to agree with him and I tried to argue why.  Now both you and hilarious have replied to me with insults, accusations, and references to other situations and people (tecshare and dooglus) and then you go on to say that I am off-topic.  Please, gentlemen, I don't have anything more to say to you about this.  I hope you can allow me to disagree with you without attacking me personally.  If you want to talk about other situations, there are other threads.

[SebastianJu]

It looks like Maidak's OTC profile has a rating from someone who claims that Maidak owes him $10,000. I am not sure how reputable that person is. The rating was sent to Maidak's profile on August 17 (roughly a week ago)

Hm... might have been enough to clear his reputation on bitcointalk.org with that amount of money. This didn't happen yet so i wonder what happened with that amount of money.

Or was the one giving that rating one of the scammed ones on here?

Anyway... seeing that gives not much hope.