tysat
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1004
Keep it real
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:27:24 PM |
|
gotpetum brought up a good point a few posts back that I think most people are ignoring: On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines: - List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score. - Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts. - Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it. - "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting. - It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade. - If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.
This quote is taken from the original Marketplace trust thread started by theymos. Note the giant underlined bolded words.
|
|
|
|
zackclark70
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
ADT developer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:29:26 PM |
|
this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken
I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it
No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin. tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence? there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:33:00 PM |
|
this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken
I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it
No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin. tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence? I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct. 1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where. Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount. 2) The b0t thing is a red herring. Yes I registered that username but almost never used it. I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned. Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time. To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
|
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:33:41 PM |
|
there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him
Ok, assuming that the bot only made .01 BTC, that means the amount is still wrong, but the principal is the same. Tspacepilot went on TradeFortress' site, and used illegitimate ways to gain Bitcoins. Tradefortress' feedback would still be valid, although he should probably change it to .01BTC if there was evidence. But really, what is the difference between scamming .01BTC, .02BTC, or .5BTC, either way they would still have the negative feedback from TF and the reason. The arguement here isn't whether or not tspacepilot abused the site and took Bitcoins from Tradefortress, its A) whether its ok to post it on Bitcointalk, a different site, and B) Whether tspacepilot is at fault for abusing the system. From the hundreds of other cases I've seen, the answer is yes to both. The amount isn't a major factor.
|
|
|
|
Mitchell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4032
Merit: 2229
Verified awesomeness ✔
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:36:33 PM |
|
this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken
I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it
No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin. tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence? I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct. 1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where. Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount. 2) The b0t thing is a red herring. Yes I registered that username but almost never used it. I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned. Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat. The rules state that a bot has to have "bot" in it's name, not "b0t". This has been mentioned before. So using that bot would have given you BTC you didn't deserve, because you break the rules. To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat. For fuck sake, stop bringing this up. We already destroyed that argument. You don't HAVE to be in a currency trade agreement for him to decrease your trust rating. If he thinks you scammed him, he is allowed to, no matter if you guys ever made a trade. God, why do I even bother talking to you. You only see your own truth and nothing else. I am out of here.
|
| | | . Duelbits | | | ▄████▄▄ ▄█████████▄ ▄█████████████▄ ▄██████████████████▄ ▄████▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄███▄ ▄████▐▀▄▄▀▌██▄█▄██▐▀▄▄▀▌███ ██████▀▀▀▀████▀███▀▀▀▀█████ ▐████████████■▄▄▄■██████████▀ ▐██████████████████████████▀ ██████████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████▀ ▀███████████████▀ | | | | | . ▄ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀▀▄ █ █ ▀▄ █ ▄█▄ ▀▄ █ ▄▀ ▀▄ ▀█▀ ▄▀ ▀█▄▄▄▀▀ ▀ ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▀
Live Games | | ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ ▄ █ ▄ █ ▀▄ █ █ ▀ ▀ █ █ ▄▄▄ █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ █ █ █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █▄█ █ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ █ █▄█
Slots | | . ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▄ █ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ █ ▄▄ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄▀▀▄▀▀▄ █ █ █ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ █
Blackjack | | | | █▀▀▀▀▀█▄▄▄ ▀████▄▄ ██████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀▀█ ████████▄ █ █████████▄ █ ██████████▄ ▄██ █████████▀▀▀█▄▄████ ▀▀███▀▀ ████ █ ███ █ █▀ ▄█████▄▄▄ ▄▄▀▀ ███████▀▀▀ | | | | | | | | | | [ Đ ][ Ł ] AVAILABLE NOW | |
Advertisements are not endorsed by me.
|
|
|
zackclark70
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
ADT developer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:42:16 PM |
|
there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him
Ok, assuming that the bot only made .01 BTC, that means the amount is still wrong, but the principal is the same. Tspacepilot went on TradeFortress' site, and used illegitimate ways to gain Bitcoins. Tradefortress' feedback would still be valid, although he should probably change it to .01BTC if there was evidence. But really, what is the difference between scamming .01BTC, .02BTC, or .5BTC, either way they would still have the negative feedback from TF and the reason. The arguement here isn't whether or not tspacepilot abused the site and took Bitcoins from Tradefortress, its A) whether its ok to post it on Bitcointalk, a different site, and B) Whether tspacepilot is at fault for abusing the system. From the hundreds of other cases I've seen, the answer is yes to both. The amount isn't a major factor. there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides
|
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 06:45:09 PM |
|
there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides
If tspacepilot had not withdrew any fund from coinchat, and Tradefortress has lowered his rep for no reason, wouldn't the first thing tspacepilot would say is, hey, I never withdrew anything? They have argued about the amount, but the reasonable first step a person would take in defending themself is saying that they had taken nothing. Tspacepilot did not say they didn't withdraw Bitcoin earned by the Bot, they said they didn't withdraw 1.5 BTC or .5 BTC. also I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct.
1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where. Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount. 2) The b0t thing is a red herring. Yes I registered that username but almost never used it. I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned. Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
You didn't withdraw "anywhere near that amount" so you did withdraw something. And you "Almost never" used the illegal bot, but you did use it.
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 09:39:53 PM |
|
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
The rules state that a bot has to have "bot" in it's name, not "b0t". This has been mentioned before. So using that bot would have given you BTC you didn't deserve, because you break the rules. To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat. For fuck sake, stop bringing this up. We already destroyed that argument. You don't HAVE to be in a currency trade agreement for him to decrease your trust rating. If he thinks you scammed him, he is allowed to, no matter if you guys ever made a trade. Oh if it's for fuck's sake then I think that makes your point a lot more clear. I get it, for you TF shall can whatever he wants no matter the relevance or the accuracy. Yes, for fuck sake I undersand you perfectly. God, why do I even bother talking to you. [sic] You only see your own truth and nothing else. I am out of here.
Probably for the best. If all you can offer is the mantra that whatever tf does or says is right and true then I wouldn't exactly characterize your contributions as helpful. Ciao!
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 09:56:09 PM |
|
there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides
If tspacepilot had not withdrew any fund from coinchat, and Tradefortress has lowered his rep for no reason, wouldn't the first thing tspacepilot would say is, hey, I never withdrew anything? They have argued about the amount, but the reasonable first step a person would take in defending themself is saying that they had taken nothing. Tspacepilot did not say they didn't withdraw Bitcoin earned by the Bot, they said they didn't withdraw 1.5 BTC or .5 BTC. also I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct.
1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where. Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount. 2) The b0t thing is a red herring. Yes I registered that username but almost never used it. I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned. Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
You didn't withdraw "anywhere near that amount" so you did withdraw something. And you "Almost never" used the illegal bot, but you did use it. Salty, I think I see your point about reducing this to a categorical notion. However, I disagree wholeheartedly. Tf is currently holding my reputation ransom for 0.5BTC. He started off demanding 1.5BTC (an amount I dont even have!). If tf's ransom demand was 0.001btc I would probably just pay him to make this go away and hope that he didnt come back demanding more at a later date. In any case I would be able to provide evidence from this forum where he and I made an agreement and if he didn't fulfill his part of the bargain that would also be public knowledge. As things stand, there is 0 evidence regarding whatever I "owe" him (scare quotes because I don't believe I owe him anything). Yet I am liable for any amount he chooses and my only recourse (it seems) is to decry the blackmail in this thread. I really feel that the numbers do matter here because they are a) unsupported by evidence and b) my rep is being held liable for those amounts.
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3024
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:03:30 PM Last edit: September 30, 2013, 10:45:34 PM by TheButterZone |
|
What this really comes down to, is: - When was there a Terms of Service/Use/etc. published on CoinChat.org? And which revision of it specified the bot provisions, and when was that revision published?
- If that document/relevant provisions were only published after tspacepilot created his b0t and received/withdrew all BTC from using it, and CoinChat, can those terms be considered retroactive?
- Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution for example, but should ex post facto rules be valid for private entities to claim "they broke the rules [that didn't even exist at the time they were 'broken']"?
|
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
Mitchell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4032
Merit: 2229
Verified awesomeness ✔
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:03:44 PM |
|
Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.
Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.
|
| | | . Duelbits | | | ▄████▄▄ ▄█████████▄ ▄█████████████▄ ▄██████████████████▄ ▄████▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄███▄ ▄████▐▀▄▄▀▌██▄█▄██▐▀▄▄▀▌███ ██████▀▀▀▀████▀███▀▀▀▀█████ ▐████████████■▄▄▄■██████████▀ ▐██████████████████████████▀ ██████████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████▀ ▀███████████████▀ | | | | | . ▄ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀▀▄ █ █ ▀▄ █ ▄█▄ ▀▄ █ ▄▀ ▀▄ ▀█▀ ▄▀ ▀█▄▄▄▀▀ ▀ ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▀
Live Games | | ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ ▄ █ ▄ █ ▀▄ █ █ ▀ ▀ █ █ ▄▄▄ █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ █ █ █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █▄█ █ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ █ █▄█
Slots | | . ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▄ █ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ █ ▄▄ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄▀▀▄▀▀▄ █ █ █ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ █
Blackjack | | | | █▀▀▀▀▀█▄▄▄ ▀████▄▄ ██████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀▀█ ████████▄ █ █████████▄ █ ██████████▄ ▄██ █████████▀▀▀█▄▄████ ▀▀███▀▀ ████ █ ███ █ █▀ ▄█████▄▄▄ ▄▄▀▀ ███████▀▀▀ | | | | | | | | | | [ Đ ][ Ł ] AVAILABLE NOW | |
Advertisements are not endorsed by me.
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:08:13 PM |
|
Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.
Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.
Uh, was this supposed to a link? I thought you agreed that blind tf cheerleading wasn't helping and you planned to move along.
|
|
|
|
Mitchell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4032
Merit: 2229
Verified awesomeness ✔
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:12:33 PM |
|
Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.
Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.
Uh, was this supposed to a link? I thought you agreed that blind tf cheerleading wasn't helping and you planned to move along. Nope and yep. But if you twist stuff I say, I will have to correct it.
|
| | | . Duelbits | | | ▄████▄▄ ▄█████████▄ ▄█████████████▄ ▄██████████████████▄ ▄████▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄███▄ ▄████▐▀▄▄▀▌██▄█▄██▐▀▄▄▀▌███ ██████▀▀▀▀████▀███▀▀▀▀█████ ▐████████████■▄▄▄■██████████▀ ▐██████████████████████████▀ ██████████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████▀ ▀███████████████▀ | | | | | . ▄ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀▀▄ █ █ ▀▄ █ ▄█▄ ▀▄ █ ▄▀ ▀▄ ▀█▀ ▄▀ ▀█▄▄▄▀▀ ▀ ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▀
Live Games | | ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▄▀ ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ ▄ █ ▄ █ ▀▄ █ █ ▀ ▀ █ █ ▄▄▄ █ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ █ █ █ █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █▄█ █ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ ▀▀█ █ █▄█
Slots | | . ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▄ █ ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ █ ▄▄ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄▀▀▄▀▀▄ █ █ █ ▀▄ ▄▀ █ █
Blackjack | | | | █▀▀▀▀▀█▄▄▄ ▀████▄▄ ██████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀ ▀▀█ ████████▄ █ █████████▄ █ ██████████▄ ▄██ █████████▀▀▀█▄▄████ ▀▀███▀▀ ████ █ ███ █ █▀ ▄█████▄▄▄ ▄▄▀▀ ███████▀▀▀ | | | | | | | | | | [ Đ ][ Ł ] AVAILABLE NOW | |
Advertisements are not endorsed by me.
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:13:55 PM |
|
Salty, I think I see your point about reducing this to a categorical notion. However, I disagree wholeheartedly. Tf is currently holding my reputation ransom for 0.5BTC. He started off demanding 1.5BTC (an amount I dont even have!). If tf's ransom demand was 0.001btc I would probably just pay him to make this go away and hope that he didnt come back demanding more at a later date. In any case I would be able to provide evidence from this forum where he and I made an agreement and if he didn't fulfill his part of the bargain that would also be public knowledge. As things stand, there is 0 evidence regarding whatever I "owe" him (scare quotes because I don't believe I owe him anything). Yet I am liable for any amount he chooses andmy only recourse (it seems) is to decry the blackmail in this thread. I really feel that the numbers domatter here because they are a) unsupported by evidence and b) my rep is being held liable for those amounts.
I don't think hes so much holding your reputation randsom, as he explained 1.5BTC was what it seemed you had gotten, and .5BTC is what it seems now. I'm sure he could actually check and find an exact number of coins that he lost. The Reputation system works however people want it to work. There is no protocol or strict guideline for how it should work. If I see someone doing a very shady deal, if I wanted to, I can leave them negative feedback saying, this guy looks shady, and give them the reference link, or if someone ripped me off on Ebay, and I could link them back here, I could also leave them negative rep for that. The point of the feedback system is that you can leave notes for yourself and others, with linked proof and comments, and people can judge the validity of the claims themselves. Without proof, people will desregard the negative trust, with it, they will be far more hesistant to deal with you. My point was that the figure doesn't matter meant that unless you had planned on paying him back, whether it is for 1 Satoshi or 100 BTC, it would still show negative trust from TradeFortress, and would peg you as untrustworthy if people agreed that you are in the wrong. If you were willing to pay Tradefortress back the amount that your bot had Actually earned, I'm sure he would be far more interested in searching through transaction histories to find an accurate figure. but the thing is, should Tradefortress go through the logs to give you a more accurate number of BTC lost, or would it just be a waste of time. I'm sure hes thinking that a guestimate is perfectly fine, as he wont see any amount back. And although you may not find anything wrong with your bot taking funds from coinchat, as I said earlier, it isn't really your, or Tradefortress' opinion that matters. All that matters is when someone who is going to do business with you, what will they think based on the evidence. I personally think you are at fault and wouldn't trade with you be it 1 Satoshi, or 1.5BTC (which leads into the significance of the amount owed) , and you can see that others think you are as well. But there are also other people who don't think you are at fault, so its a matter of getting people who don't find you at fault to trade with you.
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 10:28:37 PM |
|
Salty, I think I see your point about reducing this to a categorical notion. However, I disagree wholeheartedly. Tf is currently holding my reputation ransom for 0.5BTC. He started off demanding 1.5BTC (an amount I dont even have!). If tf's ransom demand was 0.001btc I would probably just pay him to make this go away and hope that he didnt come back demanding more at a later date. In any case I would be able to provide evidence from this forum where he and I made an agreement and if he didn't fulfill his part of the bargain that would also be public knowledge. As things stand, there is 0 evidence regarding whatever I "owe" him (scare quotes because I don't believe I owe him anything). Yet I am liable for any amount he chooses andmy only recourse (it seems) is to decry the blackmail in this thread. I really feel that the numbers domatter here because they are a) unsupported by evidence and b) my rep is being held liable for those amounts.
I don't think hes so much holding your reputation randsom, as he explained 1.5BTC was what it seemed you had gotten, and .5BTC is what it seems now. I'm sure he could actually check and find an exact number of coins that he lost. The Reputation system works however people want it to work. There is no protocol or strict guideline for how it should work. If I see someone doing a very shady deal, if I wanted to, I can leave them negative feedback saying, this guy looks shady, and give them the reference link, or if someone ripped me off on Ebay, and I could link them back here, I could also leave them negative rep for that. The point of the feedback system is that you can leave notes for yourself and others, with linked proof and comments, and people can judge the validity of the claims themselves. Without proof, people will desregard the negative trust, with it, they will be far more hesistant to deal with you. My point was that the figure doesn't matter meant that unless you had planned on paying him back, whether it is for 1 Satoshi or 100 BTC, it would still show negative trust from TradeFortress, and would peg you as untrustworthy if people agreed that you are in the wrong. If you were willing to pay Tradefortress back the amount that your bot had Actually earned, I'm sure he would be far more interested in searching through transaction histories to find an accurate figure. but the thing is, should Tradefortress go through the logs to give you a more accurate number of BTC lost, or would it just be a waste of time. I'm sure hes thinking that a guestimate is perfectly fine, as he wont see any amount back. And although you may not find anything wrong with your bot taking funds from coinchat, as I said earlier, it isn't really your, or Tradefortress' opinion that matters. All that matters is when someone who is going to do business with you, what will they think based on the evidence. I personally think you are at fault and wouldn't trade with you be it 1 Satoshi, or 1.5BTC (which leads into the significance of the amount owed) , and you can see that others think you are as well. But there are also other people who don't think you are at fault, so its a matter of getting people who don't find you at fault to trade with you. Thanks, Salty. While I'm saddened that tf's unsupported allegations would lead you not to do business with me (were there ever an opportunity), I really really appreciate your respectful tone and consideration of the argument. I think it stands in stark contrast to most of what's been posted in this thread. If I could get tf to talk with me in the same way, I would suppose that he and I would have been able to work something out. Given your analysis of the free-form nature of the trust system (despite the fact that the trust thread seems to construe it much more narrowly as relevant to currency trades on bitcointalk), do you really think it's a good thing to have people known for reactionary and incindiary usage of 'risked btc' as part of the default trust scheme? If the system is set up to include things like personal grudges not relevant to trading, then should there really be a 'default trust' list? Finally, if the trust system isn't really about marketplace trust, isn't it more of a confusingly labelled 'friends list', like social networks or something? I mean, if tf's lowering of my trust isn't more than a glorified 'unfriending', then I suppose I wouldn't have been that concerned. However, saying that he 'risked xxBTC' on me (when he demonstratably hasn't) and demanding payment of that amount feels like something more than 'i dont like tspacepilot'.
|
|
|
|
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 30, 2013, 11:07:59 PM |
|
Thanks, Salty. While I'm saddened that tf's unsupported allegations would lead you not to do business with me (were there ever an opportunity), I really really appreciate your respectful tone and consideration of the argument. I think it stands in stark contrast to most of what's been posted in this thread. If I could get tf to talk with me in the same way, I would suppose that he and I would have been able to work something out.
Given your analysis of the free-form nature of the trust system (despite the fact that the trust thread seems to construe it much more narrowly as relevant to currency trades on bitcointalk), do you really think it's a good thing to have people known for reactionary and incindiary usage of 'risked btc' as part of the default trust scheme? If the system is set up to include things like personal grudges not relevant to trading, then should there really be a 'default trust' list? Finally, if the trust system isn't really about marketplace trust, isn't it more of a confusingly labelled 'friends list', like social networks or something? I mean, if tf's lowering of my trust isn't more than a glorified 'unfriending', then I suppose I wouldn't have been that concerned. However, saying that he 'risked xxBTC' on me (when he demonstratably hasn't) and demanding payment of that amount feels like something more than 'i dont like tspacepilot'.
I'm not saying I think you are a bad person, I'm just saying that in light of this case, I find your arguement invalid, and Tradefortress' allegations to be reasonable and believable based on the dialog between the two of you. I do believe that the amount may be incorrect, but the principal behind the thread/accusation, is that in my opinion, you exploited Coinchat and recieved Bitcoins that you should not have based on the site's rules in place. Your first comment was that you didn't know about the rules until after you were banned, to justify what happened. If someone gains unintentionally as you are claiming, as a result of ignorance of the rules, it would make sense that you apologize, and refund the amount in question. In my opinion, it is a valid claim that because TradeFortress suffered a financial loss due to the exploit, it is reasonable for him to make a mark on your trust until you two come to a resolution. The reason TradeFortress is on the default trust list, to my understanding, is because he found a weak point in the forums security, and rather than exploiting it, he helped to fix it. That paired with his previous history of leaving accurate and reliable feedback for others, he was put onto the default trust list. All grudges aside, just the black and white picture, you took money from Tradefortress in a way that was not designed or allowed in Coinchat, and because of that he pegged you as untrustworthy. I don't really see any malicious intent in TradeFortress' amount that he pegged you as owing, I just think that in order to get a completely accurate figure, he would have had to spend additional time getting the facts completely straight for a case that didn't matter to him, because he wasn't going to see his money again. So rather than spend his time on a lost case, he make a ballpark guess. As far as me not trading with you again, that was a little harsh, but I was trying to use myself as an example to get my point across. Your best bet is buying/selling things is to always use escrow. Trustworthiness isn't as big of a deal if someone reliable is holding the funds that could be scammed on either side. That or work something out with TradeFortress, and get this thing settled. Although, even then, escrow is still a good plan.
|
|
|
|
ACCTseller
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
April 20, 2015, 04:54:01 AM |
|
Sorry to necro bump this thread, however it seems pretty clear to me that tspacepilot scammed TF in this case. I understand that scammer tags were in effect at this time, yet for some reason "OldScammerTag" did not leave tspacepilot a negative trust. Also several members of default trust seem to have agreed that tspacepilot scammed TF, however did not leave any negative trust of their own. Has the practice of multiple members leaving negative trust when someone scams a somewhat new practice?
|
|
|
|
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
April 20, 2015, 05:11:07 AM |
|
Sorry to necro bump this thread, however it seems pretty clear to me that tspacepilot scammed TF in this case. I understand that scammer tags were in effect at this time, yet for some reason "OldScammerTag" did not leave tspacepilot a negative trust. Also several members of default trust seem to have agreed that tspacepilot scammed TF, however did not leave any negative trust of their own. Has the practice of multiple members leaving negative trust when someone scams a somewhat new practice?
Assuming the mods are going to allow this insane necro bump, surely you realize that anyone looking at your post history would take into account that you are on some kind of anti-tspacepilot bender. The real qustion is why?
|
|
|
|
ACCTseller
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
April 20, 2015, 05:20:11 AM |
|
I am asking a legit question. I see above that you had admitted to using a bot on CoinChat, didn't use the proper string of "bot" in your handle, and withdrew some amount of funds when doing so would have violated the terms of the CoinChat TOS (which you would have agreed to when you signed up). Your post history does resemble that of a spammer (I wonder if you have used any bots to post here ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) ) I don't see any reason why the necro bump would not be allowed. There are several open threads about the trust system, and it appears that the trust system has failed in this case because when TF was removed from the default trust network, you lost your "warning: Trade with Extreme Caution" tag despite you still being a scammer. I wonder if your thread asking to dilute the trust system has anything to do with this thread.
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1530
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
April 22, 2015, 09:22:26 AM |
|
Sorry to necro bump this thread, however it seems pretty clear to me that tspacepilot scammed TF in this case. I understand that scammer tags were in effect at this time, yet for some reason "OldScammerTag" did not leave tspacepilot a negative trust. Also several members of default trust seem to have agreed that tspacepilot scammed TF, however did not leave any negative trust of their own. Has the practice of multiple members leaving negative trust when someone scams a somewhat new practice?
Assuming the mods are going to allow this insane necro bump, surely you realize that anyone looking at your post history would take into account that you are on some kind of anti-tspacepilot bender. The real qustion is why? I honestly dont care why the dirt was dug up, but I wonder how you manager to keep this hidden from your rating. Several highly trusted people have left their opinion on this matter, but no ratings which reflect them. Your account currently seems legit, mainly because ratings by TF no longer carry much weight. Well, rather it would seem like this if it was not for Quicksellers rating.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
|