I have left you appropriate feedback, and I encourage others to leave similar negative feedback.
I have left you appropriate negative feedback for falsely accusing me of wrongdoing(s).
Lol, I think it is pretty clear that your feedback is retaliatory and the purpose of which is to try to get me to prevent me from further saying that you tried (and failed to) extort a coin from
-you offer to buy a coin from defcon23 for ~11% of what the coin eventually sells for (and what I presume similar coin(s) have sold for in the past) - via direct message
False. Don't make assumptions when you have no knowledge on this matter. I offered $25 which is more than the average of the last three sales ($20, $25 & $25). He said he's going to keep, so I left it at that and had a little fun with him in that chatroom (easily indentified by saying I'd leave miffman negative rating).
You knew very well what that coin is worth, I don't follow sales of those similar coins, however the coin in question sold for .25
BTC, and had bids as high as .3
BTC, but were rejected due to time. You stated that you knew another seller would ask for more then what you were offering. Coins with a low serial number tend to sell for a preimum, as they are more desirable, which is why you wanted a set of coins with a "1" serial number.
You threatened to leave negative trust if that coin was not sold to you at ~11% of it's value, and you ended up leaving negative trust over a year old issue that you had long been aware of the day the auction was over. That is not joking around, that is making good on your extortion threat.
-you say that you will leave negative feedback if defcon23 does not sell the coin to you for your 11% price
It clearly says:"let me know who gets it so I can leave negative rating", not 'who sells it'. I don't see any invalid negative ratings on anyone from my profile.
I read that as you threatening to leave a negative rating against defcon23, not the buyer. Regardless it wasn't the buyer who did anything to you, it was defcon23 who declined to give you the coin for a ~90% discount.
-you say that it will be impossible to link IRC-lauda to btctlk-lauda
Just another example that I'm not serious in that chatroom, I tend to say that I'm in the matrix very often (very serious indeed). There was even talk of a potential meetup between Mitchell, defcon and myself afterwards (day or two after). So much for "extortion".
Bullshit. You were giving reasons why you would not get caught when you made good on your extortion threat as an attempt to get deacon23 to give you the coin.
-you leave negative trust for defcon23 the very same day that he sells the coin to someone else via an auction over an issue that you knew about well in advance
The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.
So you waited until the coin was sold to leave the negative trust. The lack of additional attempts to buy the coin is irrelevant.
I don't see any indication that any of the conversations were intended to be private. Also most scammers/extortionists do not want their scam attempts/extortion attempts to be made public
![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
False. I'm saying that I don't agree with it, i.e. I agree with miffman. I don't mind this being public, it's just a chatroom.
You must not understand how confidentiality works.
I don't think it is appropriate to have extortionists as moderators.
You think that it is not appropriate to have people who breath as moderators, as long as they are called Lauda.
Nope, it is not appropriate to have people with a history of attempting to extort people as moderators. It is an issue of public trust. How can anyone trust that the forum will be moderated fairly and impartially if one of the moderators has a history of attempting to extort others?