Message to DT members. Stop abusing your powers. (And regular members)

[Gh0stt]

Stop abusing your fucking trust. It's meant for marketplace deals, not for what your fucking opinion is.

Here is a negative left by cryptodevil to a legitimate member who has been dealing with accounts for a super long time and has never done anything wrong.

"Interested in purchasing a senior level forum account. The buying and selling of forum accounts allows scammers to more effectively steal money from other people. While it is not against forum rules, per se, the community is now pretty much fucking done with it, given all the problems it causes and people who participate in it are sketchy as fuck."

The fact that it's not against the rules should say something about that. This fucking retard (almost all the members on DT) thinks that it's okay to leave negative ratings like this. A bunch of non DT users copy and do this is shit as well, to ride on. Then they retaliate with "oh I'm not dt it won't affect you" yes it fucking will, trust is trust and some morons believe anything.

And you know what's worse? Regular members spamming negatives on everyone they see so they can get onto DT and be able to give - that are visible to members with the default trust list. Prime example; the pHarmacist
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1542520.msg15508614#msg15508614

"Stop dealing in bitcointalk accounts.   It's shady as fuck and you deserve a neg for that.  However,  as has been pointed out,  my feedback will mean nothing to your account.   I do this for myself, as I have deleted DT from my trust thingee and I don't trust people who buy and sell accounts.  All too often people buy them to pull off scams, especially green trusted accounts hero and above."

Their logic is so fucking stupid, it's like saying a cop can arrest someone just because they think that what they are doing its shady. This is the same as a drug being legal in a state, but one cop not liking it so he arrests anyone he sees with it. Your OPINION has nothing to do with this, so leave it the fuck out! No, you're not a legend. No, you're not a cop and YES, NO ONE FUCKING LIKES YOU.

Examples;
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224980
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747
Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

SOME OF THE USERS THAT ACTUALLY USE IT CORRECTLY AND AREN'T DEGENERATES WHO HAVE NO HOME OR FAMILY SO THEY DONT HAVE TO ACT LIKE A FUCKING RETARD ONLINE
- dooglus
- Stunna
- Ryan (bustabit)

I've been here for years, this is just a new account so if you're going to say something about my account age go ahead and fucking say it. Can't wait for the retards from countries where they make $0.000001 an hour to reply.

[1714938165]

1714938165

[1714938165]

1714938165

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I'm not trying to get on DT.  That is the furthest thing from my mind.   The trust ratings are for myself and you know why I don't trust account dealers and buyers.   That's how this here trust system works, like it or not.

[jacee]

I had to somewhat agree on this. The Pharmasist left me a feedback because of the last time I tried to bid on an account up for auction. That was back on April when he left me a feedback just this June. He dugged up my account just to tag me his negative. lol. That was shitty for me really, I hate seeing unnecessary feedbacks specially if I know I didn't do anything wrong and I still see that f*cked up feedback on my trust  Not a biggie tho. I learnt to ignore it because I know for myself I am not doing anything shady unlike what he is accusing me of. Trust isn't moderated so let them be asshole for what they are doing and live your own life.

I do understand them tho. Most account specially high rank accounts with positive trusts are being used to scam other people. I can not disagree that they should left a feedback but I think the red feedback is necessarry for some accounts.  A neutral should be enough to act as a referrence if an account is bought or not.
The ones who deserves to be tagged are those people selling their trust. Those accounts on DT or have a light green trust being sold on the marketplace.

Edit:
as for what you said about them trying to get on DT. Yea, I saw them doing the same stuff, acting so bossy trying to bust everyone even nothin really is bustable just so tey can gain other people trust and twy will get a positive feedback for being so busy on hunting all people and soon you will just see them wearing that shiny dark green.

Trust here is f*cked up. Basically just don't trust anyone.

[Xenophoto]

Quick note: I'm posting this not to get hated on or start a debate, just want to say some things.

The Pharmacist has been receiving tons of feedback like OP has posted. Let's just accept that The Pharmacist has a lot of time to spend to put a negative trust to whoever creates a topic or replies to a topic that is about buying/selling an account. There's a thread in here where people have agreed on The Pharmacist's reason why he puts negative trust on people.

Anyway, I understand OP's point. Imagine doing good stuffs in here and just because of The Pharmacist's feedback on you, you're account loses it's value. People only see that shining red trust (DT or non-DT, they don't care).

I also understand The Pharmacist's point but beside the Negative box in the trust summary, there's "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." I think The Pharmacist wasn't scammed by those people that he tagged. And also you can't accuse someone is a scammer just because he is selling/buying an account for some reasons.

As for cryptodevil, I think the red trusts that he had given to ponzi promoters are valid as we all know that ponzi sites are scam sites (They might be paying now but they surely will eventually become a scam site).



On a side note, I agree that some DT member are overusing their power in here. I once woke up with negative trusts from 2 DT members. I'm not going to mention their names because what they did is foolish. Someone made a new account and said that I scammed him. There's no proof or something, just saying that I scammed him.

These 2 DT members quickly put a negative trust on me when they can just inform me about it by PMing me. I was kicked out of the signature campaign (but got in once the issue was resolved) because of their negative trust that only says to respond on the accusation thread. It's funny because I don't even deserve a neutral trust because I didn't do anything. Someone was just trolling.

[Quickseller]

1 - trust ratings are not for marketplace deals. If you do something in another section of the forum (or even off site) that either shows that you can or cannot (should not) be trusted, or scammed (or attempted to scam), then it would be appropriate to leave trust ratings accordingly. It is also not a requirement to trade with someone personally in order to leave a trust rating as this would allow scammers to simply scam users without existing reputation and be able to maintain their existing reputation.

With the above being said, yes there are many people in the DT network that are leaving trust for no reason other then they do not like the person and/or they do not like what the person is doing. This negative trust is often justified with some comment that is factually accurate, however it would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to link the comment to the person being an actual scammer.

The heart of the problem is dooglus, as he is the direct reason why two of the biggest offender, cryptodevil and Vod are in the Default Trust network. When dooglus is asked to address concerns about negative ratings left by those who receive unjust negative ratings, dooglus often will make vague comments as to why the negative rating is justified, or says that he does not agree with the negative rating, but does nothing to attempt to hold the person leaving the negative rating accountable. This is in addition to the multiple successful extortion attempts, being involved in, including directly promoting, multiple multi-million dollar scams (1, 2, 3), as well as the glaring conflict of interest in the negative ratings that he often leaves his competitors. Excluding dooglus from the Default Trust network would solve almost all of the issues the DT network currently has.

Another issue is that there are many people attempting to make a name for themselves with unclear motives. This is not a problem with the DT system necessarily, however people often brush off trust ratings from these people as "meaningless" when the recipient of such trust attempts to resolve the issue. The problem with brushing this negative trust off as "meaningless" is that some of these people are in some people's trust list, so it does have meaning.

It used to be that the forum administration played a more active role in "moderating" the DT network, however now for some reason it appears that the administration's stance on the DT network is "IDGAF what happens or what trust is left by those in the DT network"

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to continue to scam even with negative ratings because it is expected for some people to have negative trust when they have certain types of businesses. 

[cryptodevil]

Oh man I am on a ROLL ! Two bitch-fest threads in my honour in quick succession! #blessed

....Waaaa!Waaaa!WaaaAAAaaaAAAAaaAAAaaAAaaaaa!

....I'm a long-time-proven scammer....I have a major fucking hard-on for Dooglus and jump at the opportunity to crowbar in ANY complaint and allegation I can at ANY opportunity....

Here's the thing, this forum has rules, those rules are for everybody and are, on the whole, pretty relaxed. The community is trusted to not be completely selfish assholes hell-bent on grabbing bitcoins from wherever and whomever they can. Unfortunately many people suffer from inherent neurological dysfunction as a result of a combination of nature/nurture and have become human beings who mistakenly believe that their autonomy, and only their autonomy, is sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited. This leads to them not only being dishonest and untrustworthy but actively believing that their dishonest and untrustworthy behaviour is also sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited.

They also appear to mistake a community action which merely serves to inform the wider populace of their untrustworthy nature as one which unfairly prevents them from conducting themselves as they please. This is simply untrue, although, seeing as dishonesty is the basis for much of their personae it isn't surprising that they are frequently driven to create threads solely for the purpose of whining about being publicly held to account by the community for the fact they are shitty human beings and not to be trusted.

tl;dr: Negative ratings don't actually prevent you from doing anything. They aren't for you, they are for everybody else to be informed as to the type of person you have proven yourself to be on this forum. What other users choose to do with that information is their decision but if it serves to help reduce the likelihood of people in this community being fucked over then your complaints about it are irrelevant and simply more self-serving dishonesty.

[Gh0stt]

Oh man I am on a ROLL ! Two bitch-fest threads in my honour in quick succession! #blessed

....Waaaa!Waaaa!WaaaAAAaaaAAAAaaAAAaaAAaaaaa!

....I'm a long-time-proven scammer....I have a major fucking hard-on for Dooglus and jump at the opportunity to crowbar in ANY complaint and allegation I can at ANY opportunity....

Here's the thing, this forum has rules, those rules are for everybody and are, on the whole, pretty relaxed. The community is trusted to not be completely selfish assholes hell-bent on grabbing bitcoins from wherever and whomever they can. Unfortunately many people suffer from inherent neurological dysfunction as a result of a combination of nature/nurture and have become human beings who mistakenly believe that their autonomy, and only their autonomy, is sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited. This leads to them not only being dishonest and untrustworthy but actively believing that their dishonest and untrustworthy behaviour is also sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited.

They also appear to mistake a community action which merely serves to inform the wider populace of their untrustworthy nature as one which unfairly prevents them from conducting themselves as they please. This is simply untrue, although, seeing as dishonesty is the basis for much of their personae it isn't surprising that they are frequently driven to create threads solely for the purpose of whining about being publicly held to account by the community for the fact they are shitty human beings and not to be trusted.

tl;dr: Negative ratings don't actually prevent you from doing anything. They aren't for you, they are for everybody else to be informed as to the type of person you have proven yourself to be on this forum. What other users choose to do with that information is their decision but if it serves to help reduce the likelihood of people in this community being fucked over then your complaints about it are irrelevant and simply more self-serving dishonesty.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend. Where are you from?
Maybe you could teach me how to be a dicksucker and get on the DT list.

[cryptodevil]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend. Where are you from?
Maybe you could teach me how to be a dicksucker and get on the DT list.

Awesome comeback there, kiddo, you sure showed me.

Thanks for drawing my attention to your account sale business, btw. Appreciated.

P.s.

Here is a negative left by cryptodevil to a legitimate member who has been dealing with accounts for a super long time and has never done anything wrong.

Yeah, making a thread to complain about a negative left for another member who buys and sells accounts pretty much points to you being a sock-puppet of that same member. Just a little pro-tip for you.

[Gh0stt]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend. Where are you from?
Maybe you could teach me how to be a dicksucker and get on the DT list.

Awesome comeback there, kiddo, you sure showed me.

Thanks for drawing my attention to your account sale business, btw. Appreciated.

P.s.

Here is a negative left by cryptodevil to a legitimate member who has been dealing with accounts for a super long time and has never done anything wrong.

Yeah, making a thread to complain about a negative left for another member who buys and sells accounts pretty much points to you being a sock-puppet of that same member. Just a little pro-tip for you.

LOL. "People who buy and sell bitcointalk forum accounts provide the means for scammers to scam. They know this, therefore people who buy and sell bitcointalk forum accounts should not be trusted as they clearly do not care where or how they make their satoshis."

PLEASE explain how an account with TWO posts can be used to scam? Clear evidence of your abuse.

[ndnh]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

Well there is not much anyone can do about that.



I am wondering if this trust score is necessary. The people I actually consider trustworthy usually have lower "numbers" than the ones I don't much. Number of feedbacks is overemphasized.
The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.


Edited.

[cryptodevil]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

Oh QS, the already-proven scammer, constantly pulls this bullshit claim out of his ass.

Let's see which sounds more likely:

1) A forum member is considering the post content made by another member and notices they have red text under their user name. They click through to the trust and read why this member is not trusted. They decide for themselves how the rating may, or may not, be applicable to the evaluation they are making of that member's post.
OR
2) A forum member is considering the post content made by another member and notices they have red text under their user name. They decide to ignore it and just trust the content of the post and/or the legitimacy of the link in their signature because they have seen other members with red text under their user name so, you know, it doesn't mean anything, right?

[EDIT]

The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.

Actually this is far more likely to be a genuine issue than QS's nonsense claim.

[bitkilo]

I wouldn't say that the only reason accounts are being sold here is so the buyer can scam, i would have thought that most accounts purchased are for the buyer to try profit a little bitcoin from being part of a sig campaign, that's why you see lots of accounts being sold stating that such account is already enrolled in a signature campaign.

On the other hand the high ranking accounts sometimes being sold with green trust and private keys included are almost certainly going to be used in a scam attempt, i think we seen this with a old trusted escrow provider not so long ago.

Was the "old scammer tag" added by forum mods when that was around
Also was it know to be abused in anyway by the people with power to add it?

[cryptodevil]

i would have thought that most accounts purchased are for the buyer to try profit a little bitcoin from being part of a sig campaign

:facepalm:

Which part of pretending you are someone else in order to make other people believe that the service you are advertising in your signature is more legitimate than they otherwise would, makes you an honest and trustworthy person?

[bitkilo]

i would have thought that most accounts purchased are for the buyer to try profit a little bitcoin from being part of a sig campaign

:facepalm:

Which part of pretending you are someone else in order to make other people believe that the service you are advertising in your signature is more legitimate than they otherwise would, makes you an honest and trustworthy person?

I never said that the person who purchases an account to participate in a signature campaign is trustworthy, i just said that not all people that buy accounts are out to scam other members.
Probably not many really care too much if the site they are advertising in their signature space is some sort of ponzi scam or not.
I once took down an old sig i had the day i seen someone had been scammed, think that one was crypto VPN or something similar.

If the accounts is being sold with old private keys then its almost a 100% certainly it will be used to scam.

[Relnarien]

i would have thought that most accounts purchased are for the buyer to try profit a little bitcoin from being part of a sig campaign

:facepalm:

Which part of pretending you are someone else in order to make other people believe that the service you are advertising in your signature is more legitimate than they otherwise would, makes you an honest and trustworthy person?

I never said that the person who purchases an account to participate in a signature campaign is trustworthy, i just said that not all people that buy accounts are out to scam other members.
Probably not many really care too much if the site they are advertising in their signature space is some sort of ponzi scam or not.
I once took down an old sig i had the day i seen someone had been scammed, think that one was crypto VPN or something similar.

If the accounts is being sold with old private keys then its almost a 100% certainly it will be used to scam.

If someone is using someone else's identity (i.e., bought an account) to participate in a signature campaign, then that person is defrauding the runner of that signature campaign by not providing him/her with what he/she's paying for. Campaign runners don't ask for non-negative trust members just for the fun of it -- they want someone that the community "trusts". If someone bought an account, then that person is not the same person who the community has come to -- for lack of a more appropriate word -- trust. That's the scamming part there. They're scamming the campaign.

[tspacepilot]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

Oh QS, the already-proven scammer, constantly pulls this bullshit claim out of his ass.

QS has never argued from facts.  Anyone who takes the time to read through his many attack posts (I don't really recommend it) will quickly find the weasel-words, the emotional appeal, and the convoluted structure.  In short, he drops walls of text which at first glance seems like an argument, until you actually unpack it and realize it's mountains of unsubstantiated claims with a few walletexplorer links thrown in.  What's funny to me about this thread is that the OP's actual complaint is connected to this QS directly.  I don't know about the pharmacist and I don't spend anywhere near as much time on here as I used to, but QS was on of the main people doing exactly that sort of trust-spamming trust-echoing in an effort to get onto Default Trust.  Presumably, he would have eventually pulled some sort of giant exit scam, but he was caught doing some minor stealing of escrow fees and lying about his identity and so he was removed and since then we just have bitter QS who throws random claims at dooglus once a month.

All I'm saying is that the OP's complaint of people abusing the trust system, and people jockeying to be the next one on default trust does exist.  I'm not saying that cryptodevil or the pharmacist are guilty of it.

[Gh0stt]

Hey cryptodevil, is there any reason why you didn't answer my last question? I find it funny how you probably don't have a life outside of this forum so you spend your life pressing refresh on the "Show new replies to your posts" waiting to give out some negatives.

[Quickseller]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

If everyone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust (and a "WARNING: trade with extreme caution" tag), then it will not come as a surprise when someone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust. If someone often trades with people who sell MSDN accounts, and the comments on their negative trust always say "this guy is scammin Macrosoft becuz of TOS", which they do not care about, nor do they think is a valid reason to conclude they are a scammer), then it becomes pointless to read the trust comments because they all say the same thing.

The same thing is true for those who participate in ponzs (who run ponzis), who deal in accounts, and who do anything that a select few members simply do not like.

I am wondering if this trust score is necessary. The people I actually consider trustworthy usually have lower "numbers" than the ones I don't much. Number of feedbacks is overemphasized.
The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.

A trust score is necessary to measure how many people have had positive financial interactions with the person whose ability to be trusted is being measured. If only one or two people have had a positive trading experience with someone then, all else being equal, they are less likely to be trustworthy then someone who has had positive trading experiences with 30 people (who are in your trust network). One rationale behind this is that the positive trust rating that the one or two people left might be inaccurate, another rationale is that someone might be willing to walk away from a trade (scamming their trading partner) if something goes wrong, and the one or two people who traded with someone just might have been able to avoid anything from going wrong in their trades.

One other reason why trust ratings are important is because they help people measure differences in trust levels at any point in time. For example, if you decide to trust someone today because you have read someone's trust comments extensively, and otherwise researched and determined that is it safe to trust them, and subsequently have a positive trading experience, then a month from now, if a similar trade were to be proposed to you again, and the person you dealt with all of a sudden has negative trust (when they previously had positive trust), then you might want to look into their ability to be trusted again, but if their trust level has not changed, then it might not be necessary to research their ability to be trusted a second time.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

Oh QS, the already-proven scammer, constantly pulls this bullshit claim out of his ass.

QS has never argued from facts.  Anyone who takes the time to read through his many attack posts (I don't really recommend it) will quickly find the weasel-words, the emotional appeal, and the convoluted structure.  In short, he drops walls of text which at first glance seems like an argument, until you actually unpack it and realize it's mountains of unsubstantiated claims with a few walletexplorer links thrown in.  What's funny to me about this thread is that the OP's actual complaint is connected to this QS directly.  I don't know about the pharmacist and I don't spend anywhere near as much time on here as I used to, but QS was on of the main people doing exactly that sort of trust-spamming trust-echoing in an effort to get onto Default Trust.  Presumably, he would have eventually pulled some sort of giant exit scam, but he was caught doing some minor stealing of escrow fees and lying about his identity and so he was removed and since then we just have bitter QS who throws random claims at dooglus once a month.

All I'm saying is that the OP's complaint of people abusing the trust system, and people jockeying to be the next one on default trust does exist.  I'm not saying that cryptodevil or the pharmacist are guilty of it.

Let me say this:  I don't care about default trust.  I deleted it and don't want to be on it.  And most importantly:  people sgould not be on default trust simply for scam-busting.   So my negging of account sellers is for me and from my principles.  I'm not on a crusade to get on DT.  I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

[Lutpin]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

[EcuaMobi]

Don't take it personally but I'll post here a concern I have about feedback left by cryptodevil and The Pharmacist (among others) regarding what Quickseller said about giving negative trust to all the users who run a specific type of business.
It's true that people should read the feedback and not just check the positive or negative overall trust rating. But too general comments don't help too much. Things like "Running a ponzi 'doubler' scam" on every profile that runs or promotes a ponzi (regardless of whether the ponzi follows the ponzi 'rules' or is just a fake site that steals any deposit) or "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" for every user that tries to sell or buy an account (regardless of whether the user sells to scammers or is just selling collateral from defaulted loans, among other factors) won't help much. People will open their profile, read the feedback and say "I won't worry, it's just the standard negative trust" and go ahead.

There are people who make related but much worse things. For example this user. He's running a site that fakes stats, deposits and users. He's not just running a ponzi, he's running a plain scam. Even if people understand what a ponzi is and are willing to risk their money that's not what they would get with him. They would just be directly scammed, even the first deposit. However cryptodevil just left the standard "Ponzi 'doubler' scammer". So anyone would just read it, think it's just a regular ponzi and continue.

More specific negative trust given after further analysis and with more details would be much more helpful for everyone.

[Bit_Happy]

Stop abusing your fucking trust. It's meant for marketplace deals, not for what your fucking opinion is....

I am glad to not be part of the trusted elite.
Much better to remain independent and have people wonder about the true nature of my huge plans which will make several people very rich in an honest manner. 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

[Quickseller]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

[tommorisonwebdesign]

1 - trust ratings are not for marketplace deals. If you do something in another section of the forum (or even off site) that either shows that you can or cannot (should not) be trusted, or scammed (or attempted to scam), then it would be appropriate to leave trust ratings accordingly. It is also not a requirement to trade with someone personally in order to leave a trust rating as this would allow scammers to simply scam users without existing reputation and be able to maintain their existing reputation.

With the above being said, yes there are many people in the DT network that are leaving trust for no reason other then they do not like the person and/or they do not like what the person is doing. This negative trust is often justified with some comment that is factually accurate, however it would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to link the comment to the person being an actual scammer.

The heart of the problem is dooglus, as he is the direct reason why two of the biggest offender, cryptodevil and Vod are in the Default Trust network. When dooglus is asked to address concerns about negative ratings left by those who receive unjust negative ratings, dooglus often will make vague comments as to why the negative rating is justified, or says that he does not agree with the negative rating, but does nothing to attempt to hold the person leaving the negative rating accountable. This is in addition to the multiple successful extortion attempts, being involved in, including directly promoting, multiple multi-million dollar scams (1, 2, 3), as well as the glaring conflict of interest in the negative ratings that he often leaves his competitors. Excluding dooglus from the Default Trust network would solve almost all of the issues the DT network currently has.

I agree. If trust was only for marketplace deals, it would be easier for scammers to scam. I think, though, that we can't let the fact that this is the internet. One thing people seem to do here is forget how easy it is to scam with the annoymity of the internet. That's why some people give copies of their iD some (but not most) of the time.

Another issue is that there are many people attempting to make a name for themselves with unclear motives. This is not a problem with the DT system necessarily, however people often brush off trust ratings from these people as "meaningless" when the recipient of such trust attempts to resolve the issue. The problem with brushing this negative trust off as "meaningless" is that some of these people are in some people's trust list, so it does have meaning.

Agian you are right. Some people (like the Pharmacist) are abusing the trust system. A Partial confession on my note, I would hunt around the forum and leave negative trust wherever I can. I quit doing this because I would usually get a PM (or even a new Skype contact) complaining about the trust I left them. I decided then that I have way more time doing more productive things, like watching Laracasts.

It used to be that the forum administration played a more active role in "moderating" the DT network, however now for some reason it appears that the administration's stance on the DT network is "IDGAF what happens or what trust is left by those in the DT network"

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to continue to scam even with negative ratings because it is expected for some people to have negative trust when they have certain types of businesses.  

Most people on dT will remove negetive trust if it is warranted. EucaMobi calls me a scammer once, I fix my mistake, and life goes on. (Again, another confession, I could have been more calm and chill about the whole ordeal and as I don't have negative trust now so there's no problem). That being said there are still good DTers who are at least fair.

[jackg]

I have to agree with this along with other members who do!
In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be!
Also, every time I review other users' trusts, I find it funny how people have been downgraded from DT for doing exactly this spamming.

It's a problem spanning not just the DT members though!

Also, LutPin marked an account that I was trying to sell That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

Yeah, and watching you squirm and lie and rationalize about the "self-escrow" debacle you engaged in convinced me you're a lying piece of shit who shouldn't be trusted with anything here.  You obviously don't grasp what you did wrong, which was significant, or you won't admit it.  And my point still holds:  scam busting can be done by anyone, even scammers like you.

[jackg]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion.  

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

Yeah, and watching you squirm and lie and rationalize about the "self-escrow" debacle you engaged in convinced me you're a lying piece of shit who shouldn't be trusted with anything here.  You obviously don't grasp what you did wrong, which was significant, or you won't admit it.  And my point still holds:  scam busting can be done by anyone, even scammers like you.

Quickseller, I believe, isn't technically a scammer as he didn't have any intentions to steal?
Based on your trust report it seems to be very negative, suggesting that you could be seen as a scammer (based on my guidlines for who I trade with on this forum).
Also, in some ways, people that leave scam reports infrequently are probably more believed on this forum as it is done less often than others so is more believable. Though everyone with valid trust feedback (with a reference link and good reason, should be taken at a similar "severity" (want of a better word) whether it is from a DT member or not)

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"),

You're an outright liar.

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

It's the reason you were removed from Default Trust, remember?

With this I can happily withdraw some of my statement as that is a way of trust farming if it actually happened.
Though I didn't think people can be removed from DT for that as it is not supposed to be based on the forum Administrator's personal opinion?

[Vod]

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"),

You're an outright liar.

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

It's the reason you were removed from Default Trust, remember?

Who knows how many alt accounts you are currently "providing loans" to on a daily basis, to farm your trust.

[Quickseller]

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

I do not consider a trade in which a third party was involved (and one where I did not send not receive trust to myself) to be trust farming.

The rest of your post is baseless speculation.

This is of course coming from someone who he himself farms trust by trading positive trust with others in the DT network, and removing his sent positive trust when his received trust is removed

Feel free to go back to leaving negative trust that makes it easier for scammers to scam.

[Vod]

This is of course coming from someone who he himself farms trust by trading positive trust with others in the DT network, and removing his sent positive trust when his received trust is removed

That's of course baseless speculation, isn't it?     From a proven scammer no doubt!

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

That's the reason you'll never be on default trust - and the reason you hate me with every fiber in your being - I am fundamentally open and honest.

[Quickseller]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

[Quickseller]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Some people feel that you are attempting to farm trust with your repetitive negative trust (that is probably deserving of a ban for trust spam), and that you are trying to get yourself a spot in the DT network. Feel free to respond to these concerns and take your off topic, as-honiem attacks elsewhere.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Some people feel that you are attempting to farm trust with your repetitive negative trust (that is probably deserving of a ban for trust spam), and that you are trying to get yourself a spot in the DT network. Feel free to respond to these concerns and take your off topic, as-honiem attacks elsewhere.

We just discussed all that needs to be discussed.

As far as responding to your attempt at misdirection, I don't care what you or 99.99% of the folks on this forum think.  I addressed the accusation of DT-seeking in another thread.   If you feel I'm trust farming by leaving negative feedback (I'm sure that's possible in your diseased head), report me and try to get me banned if that's your thing.  Good luck.

[Quickseller]

 If you feel I'm trust farming by leaving negative feedback (I'm sure that's possible in your diseased head), report me and try to get me banned if that's your thing.  Good luck.

Trust farming is not against any kind of rule, and if you are implying that as long as you are not banned that you can proclaim that you are not trust farming then you are mistaken.

The banable offense that I was referring to was you leaving almost the exact same trust rating for a very large number of people, at a very high rate. It is the trust spam that might get you banned....

[ndnh]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

If everyone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust (and a "WARNING: trade with extreme caution" tag), then it will not come as a surprise when someone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust. If someone often trades with people who sell MSDN accounts, and the comments on their negative trust always say "this guy is scammin Macrosoft becuz of TOS", which they do not care about, nor do they think is a valid reason to conclude they are a scammer), then it becomes pointless to read the trust comments because they all say the same thing.

Yes, because they didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

They can't just assume all the negative feedbacks are for this and that and go ahead for a trade.

I am wondering if this trust score is necessary. The people I actually consider trustworthy usually have lower "numbers" than the ones I don't much. Number of feedbacks is overemphasized.
The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.

A trust score is necessary to measure how many people have had positive financial interactions with the person whose ability to be trusted is being measured. If only one or two people have had a positive trading experience with someone then, all else being equal, they are less likely to be trustworthy then someone who has had positive trading experiences with 30 people (who are in your trust network). One rationale behind this is that the positive trust rating that the one or two people left might be inaccurate, another rationale is that someone might be willing to walk away from a trade (scamming their trading partner) if something goes wrong, and the one or two people who traded with someone just might have been able to avoid anything from going wrong in their trades.

One other reason why trust ratings are important is because they help people measure differences in trust levels at any point in time. For example, if you decide to trust someone today because you have read someone's trust comments extensively, and otherwise researched and determined that is it safe to trust them, and subsequently have a positive trading experience, then a month from now, if a similar trade were to be proposed to you again, and the person you dealt with all of a sudden has negative trust (when they previously had positive trust), then you might want to look into their ability to be trusted again, but if their trust level has not changed, then it might not be necessary to research their ability to be trusted a second time.

All I mean is when a relatively new member sees a member with a dark green trust, he assumes he is a trusted member while he needn't be.

I agree with you.
May be instead of removing the trust score, make it less/no green? (red for negative, black for everything above 0). This might make someone more likely to click and see the feedbacks than assume stuff.

[Lutpin]

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Was about to say that, welp, I've skipped the qs/vod discussion, let's get back to the thread and the topic at hand.

In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

Also, Lutpin marked an account that I was trying to sell. That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

It's been ages since I've left negative trust over an account being sold. I tag them with a neutral, and in that I don't care for what reason the account gets sold,
as it doesn't change the situation with the new owner. They're behind a bought account either way, whether that account was sold as collateral or from the original owner.
If I've tagged any of your "assets" from defaulted loans with a negative, point it out to me and I'll gladly revise that to a neutral based on my current agenda on how to proceed with account sales.

[jackg]

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Was about to say that, welp, I've skipped the qs/vod discussion, let's get back to the thread and the topic at hand.

In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

Also, Lutpin marked an account that I was trying to sell. That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

It's been ages since I've left negative trust over an account being sold. I tag them with a neutral, and in that I don't care for what reason the account gets sold,
as it doesn't change the situation with the new owner. They're behind a bought account either way, whether that account was sold as collateral or from the original owner.
If I've tagged any of your "assets" from defaulted loans with a negative, point it out to me and I'll gladly revise that to a neutral based on my current agenda on how to proceed with account sales.

If I had to do a trade quickly and had no time to analyse the situation, a negative from someone like Stunna, is more valuable than a negative from you or Vod.
You did leave it at neutral, but if I sell now then I cannot as I don't want to scam the new owner!
I think (but am not certain) that I've tried to discuss this before and this is the first time I got a response)!

[Monnt]

The Cascading trust system isn't the best one out there, but if you ask me it's the only viable one that I can think of. Some DT members just like to leave negative feedbacks to anyone they can get their hands on to get their periodical "fix".

[ndnh]

If I had to do a trade quickly and had no time to analyse the situation, a negative from someone like Stunna, is more valuable than a negative from you or Vod.

That may not be true for others.

My Trust list goes literally the other way round. Lutpin and Vod on depth 0, Stunna on depth 1.

[jackg]

If I had to do a trade quickly and had no time to analyse the situation, a negative from someone like Stunna, is more valuable than a negative from you or Vod.

That may not be true for others.

My Trust list goes literally the other way round. Lutpin and Vod on depth 0, Stunna on depth 1.

That is how it does go!
However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".
Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members? (you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)!

[Lutpin]

That is how it does go!

Maybe for you.

However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".

I wasn't aware that any of the feedbacks being left by Vod or myself would be meeting the requirements of "spam" in any way.
Don't mistake being active on this forum and leaving a huge amount of feedbacks to many different users with "feedback spam".

Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members?

You're confusing being trusted (as in having a lot of positive, aged feedback) with the ability to leave feedback.
You can have no trust ratings at all and still leave valid feedbacks and you can (the other way around) be rock-solidly trusted and leave bullshit feedbacks.

(you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)

lol.

[jackg]

That is how it does go!

Maybe for you.

However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".

I wasn't aware that any of the feedbacks being left by Vod or myself would be meeting the requirements of "spam" in any way.
Don't mistake being active on this forum and leaving a huge amount of feedbacks to many different users with "feedback spam".

Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members?

You're confusing being trusted (as in having a lot of positive, aged feedback) with the ability to leave feedback.
You can have no trust ratings at all and still leave valid feedbacks and you can (the other way around) be rock-solidly trusted and leave bullshit feedbacks.

(you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)

lol.

That's why I put it in brackets? I am not one to place false accusations on people, however, it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community. I feel that your trust reports are very useful for what I have been doing (especially since you recently flagged lightlord)!
I have no problem with how you and vod eave trust as it doesn't really effect me too much as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

[tspacepilot]

That's why I put it in brackets? I am not one to place false accusations on people, however, it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Right, unfortunately there's also a lot of "politicization" here, people start developing into camps.  Those in one camp defend their cohort unthinkingly and attack the other camp equally viscously.  People resort to character smears, all kinds of nastiness.  Somehow, you have to kinda know something about who hates who when looking at trust ratings in order to apply the appropriate amount of "grains of salt" to that rating.

[Vod]

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Your posts are just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your trust farming with your alts.

Or does your silence mean that it is true?

[Lutpin]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Really, where?

as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

That sounds familiar, didn't I already write something similar a few posts above?
Oh right, I did, here we go:

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

~snip~

It's a shame to see you advertising Betcoin.AG

[jackg]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Really, where?

as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

That sounds familiar, didn't I already write something similar a few posts above?
Oh right, I did, here we go:

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

~snip~

It's a shame to see you advertising Betcoin.AG

I don't really have the time to start searching for them again in other places on the forum!
That is correct as it is not just useful to look at who gives trust. Though, if you have to look quickly, DT member trust may be useful to look at as ifit was given wrong, they would be removed fom DT!

[Vod]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

I don't really have the time to start searching for them again in other places on the forum!

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

Someone can state anything they want, no matter how absurd, and if it gets repeated enough by people like you, suddenly it becomes true?  Come on Jack, you are better than that!

[Lutpin]

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

I was about to say just this.

[jackg]

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

I was about to say just this.

My first example:

Examples;
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224980
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747
Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

This is an example that is suggested on this thread that you have been considered to be "spamming" lutpin.

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

[Lutpin]

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

That's a feedback from bitmarket.io who was catched redhanded while scamming.
The user left that exactly same feedback to EcuaMobi and Boelens (being controlled by Quickseller at that point), are you saying that those two users are aswell "spamming trust"?
Read back on the situation involving bitmarket.io here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471789.0).

If you're only going to bring up examples of proven scammers, that's not really supporting the point you're trying to make.
In difference, it rather supports "trust spammers" such as EM, QS, Vod and me.

[jackg]

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

That's a feedback from bitmarket.io who was catched redhanded while scamming.
The user left that exactly same feedback to EcuaMobi and Boelens (being controlled by Quickseller at that point), are you saying that those two users are aswell "spamming trust"?
Read back on the situation involving bitmarket.io here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471789.0).

If you're only going to bring up examples of proven scammers, that's not really supporting the point you're trying to make.
In difference, it rather supports "trust spammers" such as EM, QS, Vod and me.

You wanted me to say how poeple considered you to be tust spamming.
The OP alone stands for itself that that is how a few people believe it is true and only DT members accused of spamming are actually arguing against that!
I was not stating that QS, EM or Vod are trust spammers as I have little information to state that they are.

I anyway feel that you four are great additions to the forum anyway based on the cumulative positive trust you've received!

EDIT: (I will then retract the second example as it was sent to other users who are not accused of "trust spamming" in this thread)

[Lutpin]

You wanted me to say how poeple considered you to be tust spamming.
The OP alone stands for itself that that is how a few people believe it is true and only DT members accused of spamming are actually arguing against that

You were saying this "has been said many times", when in reality, OP is the first to bring up an accusation like that.
You were painting a situation where OP got the support of the community, when in reallity, I don't see many people backing up OP with their accusation against me, being a "trust spammer".

I was not stating that QS, EM or Vod are trust spammers as I have little information to state that they are.

You were bringing up an example from my trust page which can be equally applied to EcuaMobi and Boelens/Quickseller.
If you are not going to retract that example, then your accusations should be carried over in the same matter to those two users.

[Vod]

I'll admit sometimes (very rarely) I have simply copy and pasted someone else's feedback on the same account when I feel the exact same way.  I don't think there is anything wrong with it, considering the frequency it is done.

If the community thinks that is spammy for some odd reason, I'll simply not do it anymore.     But I doubt that is the case.

[Slow death]

Stop abusing your fucking trust. It's meant for marketplace deals, not for what your fucking opinion is.



I've been here for years, this is just a new account so if you're going to say something about my account age go ahead and fucking say it. Can't wait for the retards from countries where they make $0.000001 an hour to reply.

I've been here for years...

apparently you not learned anything these many years have you been here.

this is just a new account so if you're going to say something about my account age go ahead

I suppose you sold your account, this guy? The Pharmacist? this right to give RED TRUST for all selling/buy accounts.
I do not understand why some members want to buy an account, I had 2 accounts

Noni and slow deapth

My Noni account created last year, I remember that I did not know anything about btc and did not know that double sites that were in this forum not paid, I already knew that HYIP sites were dangerous and created by scammers (criminals), but until Lutpin and mexxer-2 gave me Red  trust because I invested in double sites that were in this forum, I thought those sites that were here in the forum were different from what I found on google (where all sites are scam). But then I lost my password NONI account and lost email account password because they were in flash and flash lost in the accident I had.

I created another account Slow Deapth and continued to invest in double sites They were this forum because I thought they paid, but cryptodevil gave me red trust and gave me condition to remove and I fulfilled the condition and never invested in these Double sites, HYIP and Ponzi.

Thanks to cryptodevil, Lutpin and mexxer-2, these guys are good people.


So I think right to RED TRUST for all who sell/buy accounts for all who invest in HYIP, DOUBLE and  PONZI SITE.


These members

- cryptodevil
- dooglus
- Stunna
- Ryan
- Vod
- Lutpin
- The Pharmacist
- SFR10
- shorena
- james.lent
- Lauda

I Love cats and dogs



are good people, smart and has good reviews ... I think all newbies and members should follow their example.

Can't wait for the retards from countries where they make $0.000001 an hour to reply.

You must be an imbecile, Useless, mentally retarded who need help.

You have many people who are hungry, who do not have what to eat, you think that those people who do not have buy food, go purchase computer to read what a retarded and stupid as you write in a forum?

Dude, do you have ever traveled to countries of third world, such as Africa for example?

Oh you never saw pain, death and suffering. You do not know how the lives of those people is.

[actmyname]

-snippy snoop-
Thanks to cryptodevil, Lutpin and mexxer-2, these guys are good people.


So I think right to RED TRUST for all who sell/buy accounts for all who invest in HYIP, DOUBLE and  PONZI SITE.


These members

- cryptodevil
- dooglus
- Stunna
- Ryan
- Vod
- Lutpin
- The Pharmacist
- SFR10
- shorena
- james.lent
- Lauda

I Love cats and dogs



are good people, smart and has good reviews ... I think all newbies and members should follow their example.

It's quite interesting seeing the opinion of someone who was given negative trust, for them to return positive messages to the ones who had sent it to them. I quite like how you understood the underlying factor of how they were against the promotion of scammy sites.

If only more people were like you (reasonable) then perhaps the forum could return to a better state.

I agree with the decision of permitting red trust. Negative feedback is given to those you cannot trust. If someone is selling an account and (directly/indirectly) causing scam/spam behaviors across the server, then it encourages that behavior. Likewise, the promotion of HYIP. Now, you choose where to place your money, so I'm fine with discrete investments so long as they aren't promoting (i.e. replying to the thread, participating in promotions, etc.) because obviously, it won't bring forum attention to it.

The only problem here lies in when someone defaults a loan and the loaner accepts the account as collateral. Is it the fault of the loaner for accepting the account? I'm not stating my opinion on this question.

[Quickseller]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

If everyone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust (and a "WARNING: trade with extreme caution" tag), then it will not come as a surprise when someone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust. If someone often trades with people who sell MSDN accounts, and the comments on their negative trust always say "this guy is scammin Macrosoft becuz of TOS", which they do not care about, nor do they think is a valid reason to conclude they are a scammer), then it becomes pointless to read the trust comments because they all say the same thing.

Yes, because they didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

They can't just assume all the negative feedbacks are for this and that and go ahead for a trade.

The trust system is intended to protect people in three ways:

• 1 - display a "WARNING: Trade with Extreme Caution" tag in their profile once their negative trust reaches a certain threshold (usually with a single negative rating)
• 2 - With trust scores
• 3 - With trust comments

Ideally people will use all three of these tools when deciding if/how much to trust someone, however in some cases (especially smaller trades), it might be safe to only use one or two of these tools. For example, it might be safe to trust someone who lacks a "trade with extreme caution" tag with $1 as long as they do not appear to be a purchased account, or it might be safe to trust this person with 10 minutes of your time when trying to find information for a small bounty.

However once people in your trust network start leaving a bunch of (negative) ratings (positive ratings are just as bad), then two thirds of your tools suddenly become useless. Also if you are not using 2/3 of the trust system related tools then I think the chances are elevated that someone will not want to use the third tool either.

[xavier77]

I don't hate any DT members. I also respect Lutpin who left a negative comment on my account. It was totally my fault to include a referral link while posting about a giveaway. I am aware now and would never tread to make the same mistake twice. Hence, I would like to be pardoned and would want sir Lutpin to remove my negative feedback. P.S: My only negative trust was given to a user who scammed me through a ponzi

[Lutpin]

I also respect Lutpin who left a negative comment on my account. It was totally my fault to include a referral link while posting about a giveaway. I am aware now and would never tread to make the same mistake twice. Hence, I would like to be pardoned and would want sir Lutpin to remove my negative feedback.

That's a neutral.