Abuse or not?

[dogie]

I just think selling the accounts is an issue when they have feedback.

Even just having multiple non declared accounts is an issue. I've still not heard a good reason for not making it known that you have more than 1 account.

[1714158199]

1714158199

[1714158199]

1714158199

[1714158199]

1714158199

[1714158199]

1714158199

[1714158199]

1714158199

[1714158199]

1714158199

[Sir_lagsalot]

Id say nuke em for all they're worth. Who cares if they get negative trust? That only balances the factor of the trust and the rank. Isn't selling accounts against the btct rules?

[dukeneptun]

Trust system is not moderated but I wouldn't trust anyone who use negative trust to a person he didn't have any interaction before.

Id say nuke em for all they're worth. Who cares if they get negative trust? That only balances the factor of the trust and the rank. Isn't selling accounts against the btct rules?

No. Account sales are discouraged but not against the rules.

[goose20]

I remember having an argument discussion with a good friend 6 or so months ago about the buying and selling of accounts on here. He seeing no issues with it, and me dead against it. He is a succussful businessman and likened it to goodwill of a business when that business is sold. Although that goodwill was built by the previous owner it still survives in the business under the new owner and is valued with a considerable premium and so on... I likened it to a personal credit rating - it is a rating for that person alone, it cannot be traded and should not be traded and so on.

Anyways, this topic is about whether leaving neg trust to a bought account is trust abuse etc. As no one should dictate to anyone else what or who they should find trustwothy or otherwise, leaving neg trust in such a situation  is imo definitely not trust abuse. Members of this forum should freely leave feedback they see fit. Other members can deal with it by adjusting their trust lists accordingly. That's how it is meant to work.

[KWH]

I remember having an argument discussion with a good friend 6 or so months ago about the buying and selling of accounts on here. He seeing no issues with it, and me dead against it. He is a succussful businessman and likened it to goodwill of a business when that business is sold. Although that goodwill was built by the previous owner it still survives in the business under the new owner and is valued with a considerable premium and so on... I likened it to a personal credit rating - it is a rating for that person alone, it cannot be traded and should not be traded and so on.

Anyways, this topic is about whether leaving neg trust to a bought account is trust abuse etc. As no one should dictate to anyone else what or who they should find trustwothy or otherwise, leaving neg trust in such a situation  is imo definitely not trust abuse. Members of this forum should freely leave feedback they see fit. Other members can deal with it by adjusting their trust lists accordingly. That's how it is meant to work.

And you can actually (normally) find the real person (ID) behind the ownership. Any bad dealings can be arbitrated any number of ways, not so much with internet anonymity.
Your analogy is much closer to reality.

[Quickseller]

I remember having an argument discussion with a good friend 6 or so months ago about the buying and selling of accounts on here. He seeing no issues with it, and me dead against it. He is a succussful businessman and likened it to goodwill of a business when that business is sold. Although that goodwill was built by the previous owner it still survives in the business under the new owner and is valued with a considerable premium and so on... I likened it to a personal credit rating - it is a rating for that person alone, it cannot be traded and should not be traded and so on.

Anyways, this topic is about whether leaving neg trust to a bought account is trust abuse etc. As no one should dictate to anyone else what or who they should find trustwothy or otherwise, leaving neg trust in such a situation  is imo definitely not trust abuse. Members of this forum should freely leave feedback they see fit. Other members can deal with it by adjusting their trust lists accordingly. That's how it is meant to work.

And you can actually (normally) find the real person (ID) behind the ownership. Any bad dealings can be arbitrated any number of ways, not so much with internet anonymity.
Your analogy is much closer to reality.

You cannot always arbitrate bad dealings when a purely internet company is sold privately (or when a domain is sold). For example, it has been reported that satoshi-dice has been sold a number of times, and AFAIK the current owner is not publicly known (and likely would be unable to be determined), however many people seem to be trusting them with at least 3,000BTC of bankroll investments without issue.

Anyways, this topic is about whether leaving neg trust to a bought account is trust abuse etc. As no one should dictate to anyone else what or who they should find trustwothy or otherwise, leaving neg trust in such a situation  is imo definitely not trust abuse. Members of this forum should freely leave feedback they see fit. Other members can deal with it by adjusting their trust lists accordingly. That's how it is meant to work.

Well maybe a better question would be, would you remove and/or exclude someone who made a habit of giving negative trust to someone whose account was purchased?

Although it may not be "abuse", if you were to ignore the ratings of someone who leaves negative trust to someone who leaves negative trust for someone whose account was purchased, then someone who wishes to have his trust ratings be taken seriously and wishes to be reputable regarding his trust ratings should not leave such negative trust.

[SebastianJu]

So you sell them mid range accounts which they build up to sell off as high ranking member accounts. What legitimate reason do people have for buying those high ranking accounts?

Signature campaigns pay more for higher ranking forum accounts.

I know. So which part of buying a high-ranking account in order to take part in signature campaigns whereby people believe a 'senior' forum member is supporting the campaign, thereby lending it a degree of undeserved credibility, is not dishonest?

If the intention is to mislead for personal gain, then the act of buying a high-ranking forum account is absolutely evidence of somebody being demonstrably untrustworthy.

I think if someone wants to find a bit of dishonesty then he can, right?

It doesn't really matter to the campaign how credible a user is. What matters is what he writes. And that depends on the person.

That and the kind of signature that is possible has the highest impact on the campaign. Since higher ranking accounts can wear bigger, more flashy signatures.

[SebastianJu]

I just think selling the accounts is an issue when they have feedback.

Even just having multiple non declared accounts is an issue. I've still not heard a good reason for not making it known that you have more than 1 account.

I think there are reasons. For example your privacy when you sell or buy something where others maybe should not know it. For example being with one of these sexsites. Some users might have a problem with that

Next thing might be shame for being scammed in a stupid way by someone.

And something i often see is selling accounts with a newbie account because otherwise everyone would know which account gets sold because it was a collateral for a loan.

[SebastianJu]

Id say nuke em for all they're worth. Who cares if they get negative trust? That only balances the factor of the trust and the rank. Isn't selling accounts against the btct rules?

It's not against the rules. And if you would go against account sale like that then we already know what would happen. Accounts would be sold in silence. Nobody would know about it.

I prefer accounts being traded through escrows. This provides a semi publicity. Staff and escrow can know which accounts were traded and might be able to draw connections.

I think that is way better than trying to forbid it unsuccessfully.