hilariousandco gave wrong trust

[Phix]

Hello,

hilariousandco gave me wrong trust, he thinks my account is bought so i am going to prove it, its my own account.

Proof 1 -
I used to create logo's and I created logo for Danksta's bot at Primedice, My PRIMEDICE Username: Phix - You can confirm it.

Proof 2 -
I created one for redsn0w's service, you can confirm it from him.
He sent me payment on my address: https://blockchain.info/it/tx/fb795cf35b381753238357aceb397f43ec3b6d0680c66c550f61cc9531b3500c

My signed message of that wallet:

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am Phix and i am signing this message to prove my ownership on 12th July, 2015 at 10:31 A.M. (Indian Standard Time).
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
17Y562iYMACaw4vyRYEcNmYjgzD3kGZDi8
HMuSrfITMnFlUXSN5Cr+UDVQU5msuEi8IoNnSdRPdD8pKuo3GMx8SkNKDXL5TtZ23/M3yllZfu6S918cKaD8B1s=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I never sold/bought this account and i am the real owner, Please remove the trust, I removed my escrow service thread.

[Phix]

Hello,

hilariousandco gave me wrong trust, he thinks my account is bought so i am going to prove it, its my own account.

Proof 1 -
I used to create logo's and I created logo for Danksta's bot at Primedice, My PRIMEDICE Username: Phix - You can confirm it.

Proof 2 -
I created one for redsn0w's service, you can confirm it from him.
He sent me payment on my address: https://blockchain.info/it/tx/fb795cf35b381753238357aceb397f43ec3b6d0680c66c550f61cc9531b3500c

My signed message of that wallet:

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am Phix and i am signing this message to prove my ownership on 12th July, 2015 at 10:31 A.M. (Indian Standard Time).
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
17Y562iYMACaw4vyRYEcNmYjgzD3kGZDi8
HMuSrfITMnFlUXSN5Cr+UDVQU5msuEi8IoNnSdRPdD8pKuo3GMx8SkNKDXL5TtZ23/M3yllZfu6S918cKaD8B1s=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I never sold/bought this account and i am the real owner, Please remove the trust, I removed my escrow service thread.

Hey why are you removing your thrrad
"Trust can't be judged from the account status"
"Even a newbie could be trusted"
"Bla bla bla"

That's an offtopic post for this thread.

[Quickseller]

The fact that your account is really irrelevant to the nature of his trust. The fact of the matter is that you have zero trade history where you were trusted with the month of your trading partner and have zero trading history where any money was actually exchanged. Yet you are still offering a service that would require others to trust you with their money.

Why would it be a good idea for someone to trust someone with their money when you have no prior trading history? Don't you think it would be better if someone were to "roll the dice" with their trading partner and hope they are acting honestly? Don't you think it would be reckless for someone to trust a person with no history of acting honestly with other people's money with their own money?

The question of if your account was sold or not is only distracting from the question of if you should be trusted with other people's money, and if people should trade with caution when considering to deal with you. I would personally think that you should not be trusted with other people's money and that people should proceed with caution when considering to deal with you. The negative rating hat hilariousandco gave you (and the one that I am about to give you) is a warning to others who are considering to trade and/or trust you.

I am somewhat surprised to see a thread about a rating that hilariousandco gave as he is normally very conservative in giving out negative trust. This does not mean that I think he should remove the rating, it is just that it is nice to see a trust related thread in meta that is not about quickseller.

[TECSHARE]

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

[hilariousandco]

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

[everaja]

The best thing that i liked is that hilariousandco never jerks off Trust easily , if he does there is cause , i havent analysed your post but as jotted down by hilariousandco in your trust  :
Quote from Trust:

this account is possibly bought as it made no posts since Dec 2014 then suddenly spammed around 70 on the 10th of June and is now offering to escrow.

Is one of the serious consederation of scamming.
Recently i have seen a ponzi site running a signature campaign and giving postion manager to BTCLOGGER and escrow to a common full member and the full member ran away with the bitcoins.

to avoid such incident in future Hilario added a note in your trust , all i can say you to improve your repo here and again ask him nicely , he would do it .

[TECSHARE]

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

There are lots of people I don't trust that I don't give negative ratings to, and if I did and I wasn't 100% positive, I would use neutral ratings. You however would rather just destroy this guys reputation on a hunch instead of just making a note on his profile. Anyone who is too lazy to read his trust ratings probably will lose all their money anyway.

It didn't take you very long to make this about me. BTW, I wasn't going around playing scambuster, I left a negative rating for some one actively harassing me in my marketplace threads, so try again OCD king.

[XinXan]

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

There are lots of people I don't trust that I don't give negative ratings to, and if I did and I wasn't 100% positive, I would use neutral ratings. You however would rather just destroy this guys reputation on a hunch instead of just making a note on his profile. Anyone who is too lazy to read his trust ratings probably will lose all their money anyway.

It didn't take you very long to make this about me. BTW, I wasn't going around playing scambuster, I left a negative rating for some one actively harassing me in my marketplace threads, so try again OCD king.

What are you talking about? Have you seen the lending section? Pretty much any newbie or low rank member that asks for loan without collateral is given neg trust by one or various members, this is no different so i don't see why are you so concerned about this specific case when there are hundreds out there.

He did not destroy anyone reputation because the user didn't have any in the first place and im pretty sure if he stops doing what he did and talks to hilarious maybe in the future he will get his trust removed just like vod did.

[hilariousandco]

The best thing that i liked is that hilariousandco never jerks off Trust easily , if he does there is cause , i havent analysed your post but as jotted down by hilariousandco in your trust

I don't leave much feedback and tend to go for neutral more than straight up negative but me not leaving negative has lead to several users being scammed shortly after. There's two instances in the last month where I've regretted not leaving negative feedback but leaving negative feedback is more hassle than it's worth half of the time especially when you get children whining and everytime you leave it all you do is make yourself another enemy. People like QS and vod likely stopped countless users from being scammed but all the thanks they get is they're doing it for their own personal benefit or people like tecshare twist it for their own personal agenda.

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

There are lots of people I don't trust that I don't give negative ratings to. Didn't take you very long to make this about me. BTW, I wasn't going around playing scambuster, I left a negative rating for some one actively harassing me, so try again OCD king.

Every time you make these pathetic and futile posts you make it about you. You only make them because you're still butthurt about being removed over your own personal abuse of the system. How do your comments help anything? Do you really think abusing the feedback system for your own personal motives is fine but attempting to stop likely scams is bad? I love how you think attempting to stop people from getting scammed is abuse but of course it suits your agenda to vilify anyone who actually uses the system for how it was intended.

Again, use this guy as an escrow for your next deals if my feedback here isn't justified.

What are you talking about? Have you seen the lending section? Pretty much any newbie or low rank member that asks for loan without collateral is given neg trust by one or various members, this is no different so i don't see why are you so concerned about this specific case when there are hundreds out there.

He did not destroy anyone reputation because the user didn't have any in the first place and im pretty sure if he stops doing what he did and talks to hilarious maybe in the future he will get his trust removed just like vod did.

Exactly, but I think tecshare thinks we should only leave feedback after someone has scammed and after we have taken that person to court and they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers but only then will feedback be justified... well, unless someone says something you don't like or trolls you then it's totally fine to use the feedback system to try get them to shut up.

[stingers]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

-snip-
Why would it be a good idea for someone to trust someone with their money when you have no prior trading history? Don't you think it would be better if someone were to "roll the dice" with their trading partner and hope they are acting honestly? Don't you think it would be reckless for someone to trust a person with no history of acting honestly with other people's money with their own money?

The question of if your account was sold or not is only distracting from the question of if you should be trusted with other people's money, and if people should trade with caution when considering to deal with you. I would personally think that you should not be trusted with other people's money and that people should proceed with caution when considering to deal with you. The negative rating hat hilariousandco gave you (and the one that I am about to give you) is a warning to others who are considering to trade and/or trust you.

Just wondering that what makes you a better escrow than this guy? You are no better. An escrow's past trading history is no gaurentee of him being honest in the future until someone knows the escrows real world identity(which certainly does makes a scammer worried before scamming people).

[redsn0w]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1118667
Please confirm that u got a logo from me.

Yes I confirm that I've received a logo from you and good luck with this battle with the mod (hilariousandco).

[XinXan]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

Havent you read the thread? The account being sold or not does not matter. As i said in my previous thread, what is wrong asking for a loan without collateral? No one forces you to accept it yet they usually end up getting negative trust, thats how things work here. In the trust settings you can read something like: leave neg trust if you think this guy might be a scammer so you are allowed to leave neg feedback if you believe the user might be a potential scammer, saying that i do not see anything wrong with it and if you want to use him as an escrow go ahead and do it is not like negative trust bans your account or locks it so you cant trade with people, its just a rating that you can read

[redsn0w]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

Havent you read the thread? The account being sold or not does not matter. As i said in my previous thread, what is wrong asking for a loan without collateral? No one forces you to accept it yet they usually end up getting negative trust, thats how things work here. In the trust settings you can read something like: leave neg trust if you think this guy might be a scammer so you are allowed to leave neg feedback if you believe the user might be a potential scammer, saying that i do not see anything wrong with it and if you want to use him as an escrow go ahead and do it is not like negative trust bans your account or locks it so you cant trade with people, its just a rating that you can read

Can I ask you one thing? What will you do if you will receive a negative trust (only because the other part doesn't trust you, so you are a potential scammer) and you can't continue to participate to any signature campaign?

//Just an hypothetical/absurd case.

[Vortex20000]

battle with the mod

Future movie idea?

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Hey, you're still extremely dark green, man. Don't complain.

[stingers]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

Havent you read the thread? The account being sold or not does not matter. As i said in my previous thread, what is wrong asking for a loan without collateral? No one forces you to accept it yet they usually end up getting negative trust, thats how things work here. In the trust settings you can read something like: leave neg trust if you think this guy might be a scammer so you are allowed to leave neg feedback if you believe the user might be a potential scammer, saying that i do not see anything wrong with it and if you want to use him as an escrow go ahead and do it is not like negative trust bans your account or locks it so you cant trade with people, its just a rating that you can read

This-

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases.

That's how things work here is no answer to a question. Things aren't supposed to work like this.

In the trust settings you can read something like: leave neg trust if you think this guy might be a scammer so you are allowed to leave neg feedback if you believe the user might be a potential scammer

But shouldn't a guy in DT2 be more careful and more levelheaded and think more before throwing out a negative trust?
More cases like this are just going to hamper the peace of the forum and will be a huge discouragement to the people who actually want to "contribute".

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Hey, you're still extremely dark green, man. Don't complain.

lol

[redsn0w]

battle with the mod

Future movie idea?
...

You made my day 


However good luck guys, I have replied here only due the PM that I've received... at the end it is not my problem if hilariousandco doesn't trust Phix.

[XinXan]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

Havent you read the thread? The account being sold or not does not matter. As i said in my previous thread, what is wrong asking for a loan without collateral? No one forces you to accept it yet they usually end up getting negative trust, thats how things work here. In the trust settings you can read something like: leave neg trust if you think this guy might be a scammer so you are allowed to leave neg feedback if you believe the user might be a potential scammer, saying that i do not see anything wrong with it and if you want to use him as an escrow go ahead and do it is not like negative trust bans your account or locks it so you cant trade with people, its just a rating that you can read

Can I ask you one thing? What will you do if you will receive a negative trust (only because the other part doesn't trust you, so you are a potential scammer) and you can't continue to participate to any signature campaign?

//Just an hypothetical/absurd case.

Well, i have 4 negative trust ratings already, of course they are untrusted so it doesnt really affect me but in the case that i would get a negative trust from a trusted member, i would probably deserve it and there would be no reason to complain so i wouldn't do anything unless it was an absurd trust rating.

[hilariousandco]

Claiming an account to be sold/hacked based on the fact that it hasn't been used since long is rubbish. We've seen many moderators going offline for a couple of months. Does that mean that their account has been sold?

I didn't claim that, I said it was possible it was bought, and his activity or lack thereof was only an additional point to my main issue but it was still relevant to why he isn't trusted to be an escrow. And Staff who are inactive for quite some time are usually removed as a couple have been recently, but you shouldn't trust them or anyone else if they pop back up after x amount of time and create a thread saying "give me your money I'm trustworthy".

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases. He just offered it, he didn't force anyone to use him as an escrow.
I believe its too harsh for hilariousandco to give him a neg trust.

The problem is he's not trusted to do so. Scammers or newbies looking for a loan don't usually force people to give them their money either but if you send them money you're likely never going to see it again. Being a no-name newb or Jnr member with no reputation or reason to trust them defeats the purpose of escrow and offering to hold on to people's money when you have no good reason to makes them untrustworthy in my opinion. Still, if people want to use the guy as an escrow then they still can but they should take my feedback into consideration. I'm also not opposed to changing it to neutral at some point either but I think my feedback is entirely appropriate. Do you think neutral would be more apt? I left a neutral on the user brendanjhwu who did a similar thing thing as op, only he ran off with a couple of users money shortly after and that's what will likely happen if people don't leave appropriate feedback in these sorts of situations.

Also, what's the problem in offering escrow? The person might be known to the parties in real world and they both might trust him or there can be other cases.

That's how things work here is no answer to a question. Things aren't supposed to work like this.

How should they work? Wait till someone uses him as an escrow then when he runs off with their money we can leave him negative feedback and proclaim "I knew it"? Best remove all feedback on ponzi operators and newbie requesting loans because until they run off with your money they've done nothing wrong, right?

But shouldn't a guy in DT2 be more careful and more levelheaded and think more before throwing out a negative trust?
More cases like this are just going to hamper the peace of the forum and will be a huge discouragement to the people who actually want to "contribute".

I am levelheaded and I did think and as I stated above my reluctance to leave very justifiable negative has lead to several people being scammed recently. Scammers also hamper the 'peace of the forum' and discourage users from using it but that's why the trust system is there to help warn others and cut down on this behavior. If it becomes commonplace where we start accepting any old user to escrow there is going to be far more scams happening and what's going to happen when people lose faith in escrows and refuse to use them because they can't be trusted anymore? People will then try wrangle out of using escrow based on that then just scam themselves when the other person decides to trust them. The bottom line is if you're not already trusted to hold on to people's money then you shouldn't be offering escrow and they shouldn't be accepted here for good reason. Once people know you enough that people start asking you to help them out on deals then that's a good indication that your services might be needed but not before and most certainly not by some random account who nobody has even heard of and that to me is the very definition of untrustworthy behavior and is why negative feedback is entirely justified.

[erikalui]

Actually in this case though the feedback was given without any scam accusation, it is pretty valid as the person was trying to work as an escrow without any reputation or experience here. Since many people here request newbies to use an escrow to be safe, such new users who offer escrow service would harm the community and become escrows to just scam. There have been other cases of scam as well and hence an escrow without feedback should be on the watchlist. I don't agree with the bought part as it doesn't matter if a person is trustworthy irrespective if he has bought the account.

[stingers]

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.