I am being given neg feedback for political reasons

[Quickseller]

I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

Yes, they both very clearly gave the negative ratings to Bitmain, a company that although does not accept deposits/pre-orders, has been entrusted with tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of obligations at a time and has followed through, for political reasons.

The merits of jonald_fyookball's opinions are irrelevant to this thread. What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions. 

[1714889790]

1714889790

[1714889790]

1714889790

[1714889790]

1714889790

[1714889790]

1714889790

[Lauda]

Agree 100%.  Hashpower is the least spoofable method and that's how Bitcoin works.  

Let's not go off spreading false knowledge that miners dictate the system.

Yes, they both very clearly gave the negative ratings to Bitmain, a company that although does not accept deposits/pre-orders, has been entrusted with tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of obligations at a time and has followed through, for political reasons.

The amount of money that an entity handles is completely irrelevant. If it was relevant, then you'd need to stop throwing my name in the dirt, hypocrite.

What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions.  

He has not been given any rating for any kind of "opinions of his own". He has been given one primarily due to his constant lies, most likely from his script.

[LittleBitFunny]

I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

The merits of jonald_fyookball's opinions are irrelevant to this thread. What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions.  

I believe that both jonald_fyookball and Lauda have frequently posted manipulative or misleading posts and threads.  However as a member of Default Trust, Lauda should have a responsibility to upkeep normal discussion by keeping the discussion (or lack thereof) to the thread where it occurs, and not giving negative trust to their opponents.  Jonald does not have this responsibility because he is not given extra power.

Lauda is a member of Default Trust who gives negative trust to many potential scammers every day, and is one of the best at monitoring the forum in this way.  However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.
Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.

[kiklo]

Lauda has falsely accused more than the two mentioned.

My self included and many others included ,
the only way to totally removed her lies is to remove blazed from default trust.
That removes Lauda and some of her hidden alt accounts in 1 shot.
But theymos is too frighten to mess with Lauda , so doubtfull anything happens.

Maybe she has a sex tape, she is blackmailing him with.
She is an known extortionist.

 

[Quickseller]

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

[...]
If he does not want to pick that up, I could create a thread (albeit it would need to be limited to e.g. people without negative trust; people above certain rank; in order to reduce shilling/manipulation).

http://archive.is/WCuOi#selection-5963.151-5963.249

[minifrij]

the only way to totally removed her lies is to remove blazed from default trust.

Or just find one other DT1 member to remove Lauda from their trust list. Since HostFat has done it already, Lauda's DT score is 0. If it goes below that, they are no longer on DT2.

[Lauda]

I believe that both jonald_fyookball and Lauda have frequently posted manipulative or misleading posts and threads.

I highly disagree. I'd welcome a PM pointing out such posts.

However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

No. There is no bias. Both ratings are perfectly valid.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.

Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.

Completely wrong. QS aims to imply that holding/processing a lot of money means that you're trustworthy, whilst trying to smear my name (someone is also holding/processing a lot of money; obviously not the same amount as BITMAIN).

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

That would only make sense IF I had stated something like that, and then proceed to leave ratings to "censor" (this isn't censorship in any way or form) these people. Scammers like you truly live in in their delusions.

[kiklo]

However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

No. There is no bias. Both ratings are perfectly valid.

Maybe those ratings are valid in the mind of a self righteous psychopath ,
but to the rest of us , they appear as petty attacks from someone that lost the debates.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.

According to a delusional self proclaimed psychopath.
Have you had a psych test recently, maybe you should schedule one, as your meds have not worked for the past few months.

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that
Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

That about sums it up right there.

 

[jonald_fyookball]

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

That would only make sense IF I had stated something like that, and then proceed to leave ratings to "censor" (this isn't censorship in any way or form) these people. 

This is an amusingly weak excuse.  Facts are:

1. Lauda left what several people consider to be unwarranted negative feedback for both myself and Bitmain
2. Lauda then suggested users participate in a polling thread regarding bitcoin scaling , excluding those with negative feedback.

People, draw your own conclusions.


 

[Lauda]

Facts are:
1. Lauda left what several people consider to be unwarranted negative feedback for both myself and Bitmain

That is not a fact, it is an opinion. Both of your ratings are not only warranted, but are going to stick.

2. Lauda then suggested users participate in a polling thread regarding bitcoin scaling , excluding those with negative feedback.

I have always, in almost every poll (that I posted an opinion on) suggested that accounts of low ranks and those with negative ratings should not be allowed to vote. My policy pre and post DT system has not changed. Are you now going to tell me I have anticipated becoming a DT member long before I did, thus worked on making my opinion consistent over time?
You keep proving my rating to be true.

[jonald_fyookball]

Facts are:
1. Lauda left what several people consider to be unwarranted negative feedback for both myself and Bitmain

This is not a fact. That is an opinion. Both of your ratings are not only warranted, but are going to stick.
 

You're clearly also an idiot if you cannot understand the phrase "what several people consider to be".  Several people: myself, quickseller, and kiklo have stated it clearly.
This makes my statement a fact.

[Lauda]

You're clearly also an idiot if you cannot understand the phrase "what several people consider to be".  Several people: myself, quickseller, and kiklo have stated it clearly.
This makes my statement a fact.

Three people, all with negative ratings and each with at least 1 negative rating from me agree that my ratings are unwarranted? How convenient, 1 scammer and 2 clowns creating a circle-jerk.

[kiklo]

You're clearly also an idiot if you cannot understand the phrase "what several people consider to be".  Several people: myself, quickseller, and kiklo have stated it clearly.
This makes my statement a fact.

Three people, all with negative ratings and each with at least 1 negative rating from me (a stupid self righteous ignorant psychotic bitch) agree that my ratings are unwarranted?

FTFY  


 

FYI:
Once Blazed is removed from default trust , will you still act this petty?

FYI2:
I think you missed the point aside from you and the 1 or 2 butt monkeys that follow you , no one else has ever given us negative trust ratings, and we been around for a long time.
In other words , you are Lying!

FYI3:
How many members have you removed as competition for your bullshit escrow service with blazed.
By red taging them, and how many members that are a part of default trusts have you red tagged.
Since you are such a bully , I doubt you have ever red tagged anyone that could red tag you back.

[LittleBitFunny]

I believe that both jonald_fyookball and Lauda have frequently posted manipulative or misleading posts and threads.

I highly disagree. I'd welcome a PM pointing out such posts.

Having looked through your posts from the last few weeks I've decided that I was wrong.  However, I still think that your posts are excessively blunt rather than using normal justification (e.g. saying "outright lie" a lot, arguably arguments by assertion or at least unnecessarily adding assertions).

However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

No. There is no bias. Both ratings are perfectly valid.

BITMAIN is a private company, suggesting something bad.  While UAHF would be BITMAIN-dominated, it's something which would require wider economic support to become relevant, and it shouldn't therefore be considered a direct "attack" on Bitcoin - just BITMAIN going off and doing something dumb.  A negative rating there is about opinion more than any thing else.

In jonald's case, he makes misleading posts which people often make in the context of an argument and an ongoing heated debate.  To discredit his username personally because of this I think is abuse of your power.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.

This is impossible to judge unless those bought accounts have been proven with evidence of addresses.  You can't reasonably say that jonald_fyookball is a bought account as he has signed a message here, and you can't reasonably say that he is a "shill account" as he has a clear trading history and activity for things other than support of big blocks.

Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.

Completely wrong. QS aims to imply that holding/processing a lot of money means that you're trustworthy, whilst trying to smear my name (someone is also holding/processing a lot of money; obviously not the same amount as BITMAIN).

It does make you trustworthy if it's suggesting that you held a lot of money without scamming people.  Holding money without scamming people is not the same as holding money.

It sounds a lot like this is more evidence that Lauda is leaving negative trust against those who do not share similar opinions with him in an effort to censor their opinions and viewpoints.

That would only make sense IF I had stated something like that, and then proceed to leave ratings to "censor" (this isn't censorship in any way or form) these people. Scammers like you truly live in in their delusions.

It's not censorship in that it doesn't prevent them from posting their views elsewhere, but it is a means of manipulating people's views about what the Bitcoin community wants or why they want it. 

Jonald does this by making unjustified statements about what the community believes, but this is different as he is not in a position of power.

[Lauda]

However, I still think that your posts are excessively blunt rather than using normal justification (e.g. saying "outright lie" a lot, arguably arguments by assertion or at least unnecessarily adding assertions).

Correct. This is primarily due to (being burnt out due to) rebutting the nonsense from the likes of jonald and franky countless number of times, and yet they keep persisting. It's important to not let newbie readers get deceived by false prophets.

A negative rating there is about opinion more than any thing else.

You may think that it is not justified, but someone else may think that it is. As long as isn't overwhelming support for one side, then it is perfectly valid.

In jonald's case, he makes misleading posts which people often make in the context of an argument and an ongoing heated debate.  To discredit his username personally because of this I think is abuse of your power.

Disagreed. He has not made them solely in context of any arguments, but has done so also by creation of his own misleading threads (look through a few posts back).

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

Correct, as many of those accounts are actually shill/bought accounts.

This is impossible to judge unless those bought accounts have been proven with evidence of addresses.  You can't reasonably say that jonald_fyookball is a bought account as he has signed a message here, and you can't reasonably say that he is a "shill account" as he has a clear trading history and activity for things other than support of big blocks.

Read my post again. I was merely pointing out something that I had observed over the years. It has nothing to do with jonald. I did not use the wording "all of those".

Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.

Completely wrong. QS aims to imply that holding/processing a lot of money means that you're trustworthy, whilst trying to smear my name (someone is also holding/processing a lot of money; obviously not the same amount as BITMAIN).

It does make you trustworthy if it's suggesting that you held a lot of money without scamming people.  Holding money without scamming people is not the same as holding money.

Well then (the distinction was rather intuitive), if QS thinks that holding a lot of money without scamming people makes one trustworthy then he should stop smearing my name. Otherwise, this makes him a hypocrite as I've pointed out in an earlier statement of mine which you've falsely labeled as "show further biases".

It's not censorship in that it doesn't prevent them from posting their views elsewhere, but it is a means of manipulating people's views about what the Bitcoin community wants or why they want it.  

Therefore, it is not censorship.

[kiklo]

Lauda is a Lying Self Important Asshole that will negative rate anyone on just a disagreement of opinion.

Blazed and the others DT members are enablers of Lauda's actions , since they could remove Lauda and actually self-police their own members, which they should.

With Power comes responsibly , all DT trust members have shirked their responsibility and refused to police Lauda, they are all as liable as Lauda is, for they are enabling Lauda.

The Default Trust System is Corrupt , Theymos refuses to fix it.

NO ONE WITH GREEN TRUST CAN BE TRUSTED!!!


 

[jonald_fyookball]

The Default Trust System is Corrupt , Theymos refuses to fix it.
 

Did you know Theymos also moderates r/bitcoin ?

[kiklo]

The Default Trust System is Corrupt , Theymos refuses to fix it.
 

Did you know Theymos also moderates r/bitcoin ?

Not surprised the same guy is trying to control information in more than one place
so they can try and direct the evolution of BTC and alts for his and his gang of DT members personal gain.
Theymos lack of showing up to answer for his crap design, points to his guilt.


 

[Spoetnik]

I think theymos "engineers" things to keep the drama down to a minimum.
But he seems to be reasonable but not when you two post shit like that.

For example he long ago had "Bitcoin Scrypt" banned here.. forbidden.
Via some negotiation with BitcoinEXpress he changed his mind on it.

I think rebuilding the trust system now is a lost cause.. it's too late guys.
What is done is done.

Oh and notice how there is a little crew of white knights here "concerned" about things ?
For example you will see Lauda & VOD run around negging anyone or anything not bolted down..
Yet Mark from GOX and Vern from Cryptsy and the hundreds of idiots who were connected walk scott free.

I have a trust rating twice as bad as Mark Krapeles from GOX for example.

Steal a half billion dollars in Bitcoin and you are ignored.
Admit you download porn via Torrents and VOD here negs you calling you a pedo. (See my Trust)
Yeah.. they suuuuuuuure got their priorities in order  

I think they wander around the streets pointing at people chanting..
YOU, your negged.
You.. NEGGED !
You dog ! ..negged.
Bird in the tree.. neeeeeeeeegged.  

[kiklo]

I think theymos "engineers" things to keep the drama down to a minimum.
But he seems to be reasonable but not when you two post shit like that.

I think Theymos is afraid of Lauda because, she has a sex tape on him.

Theymos build a broken trust system, which your avatar proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is broken.
And Theymos sits on his ass about it.

If he actually gave a damn about this piece of shit call btctalk.

He put a little work into fixing it's problem, instead of hiding behind keeping the drama down.

Lauda is creating plenty of drama on a daily basis, he lets her run the place,
maybe we should call it laudatalk, the psychotic bitch view on bitcoin.

Blazed runs around claiming to be a saint, and goes into an escrow business with lauda and lauda goes around red tagging anyone that might be competition for them.
I guess once Blazed and Lauda run off with someone's money , that the others will then red tag them.
But here is the kicker, for all we know Blazed & Lauda might be the same person, just changing alts when they move to their next scam.

Yeah real genius design trust system you have here Theymos.
If your IQ is 70.