[PRISON BREAK] Full list of users who lost their DT red trust from Lauda

[The Sceptical Chymist]

if that is why any of them excluded lauda..

Not that he's required to do so, but it sure would be nice if there was some sort of explanation provided by SaltySpitoon.  This may have some negative repercussions on the forum, and I for one would like to know what changed in his eyes--though I suspect it's probably about the last scam accusation that was opened against Lauda about the escrow thing.

I don't like the idea of blindly copying all of lauda's tags.

I don't either, which is why I'm doing nothing for now.  Lauda has been pretty good on the whole about leaving feedbacks, but the fact is that I've never looked through them all and don't intend to do so.  And that's what I think a DT member (or team of same) would have to do if the red tags were to stay intact.  That's a monumental task.  I'm not even sure how long it'd take for me to check a dozen tags for accuracy, such that I'd stand by them with my own reputation, much less over a thousand.

[1715369037]

1715369037

[1715369037]

1715369037

[1715369037]

1715369037

[1715369037]

1715369037

[1715369037]

1715369037

[1715369037]

1715369037

[Lauda]

-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.

You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services

This may have some negative repercussions on the forum, and I for one would like to know what changed in his eyes--though I suspect it's probably about the last scam accusation that was opened against Lauda about the escrow thing.

That would be absurd, as factually I couldn't have done anything on my own which stops the whole reputation attack in its tracks. There has to be something else.

[actmyname]

-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.

You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services

My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.

As I have said, the users that I had posted in the code block were listed from a PM from a different user. There has been no definitive proof of linkage between them and the one that is promising ICO bumping. This is relying on hearsay at best.

You can feel free to start a discourse about this if you want to argue toward the side of tagging vs. not.

[Lauda]

-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.

You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services

My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.
As I have said, the users that I had posted in the code block were listed from a PM from a different user. There has been no definitive proof of linkage between them and the one that is promising ICO bumping. This is relying on hearsay at best.

Nevermind this part. Screenshots are genuine:

I've logged into the account and verified the screenshots are not faked.

If you looked into the posting patterns, and times when some users were last active (e.g. "ScAryme") you would come to the same conclusion. In addition to that, you should factor in the lack of complaints from the 'alleged team members'.

[actmyname]

Screenshots are genuine:

I've logged into the account and verified the screenshots are not faked.

Not hearsay by part of the accusatory account, no. Perhaps I should clarify. It's hearsay from the user who sent it to the ICO-bumping buster account. Mysterious01.

If you looked into the posting patterns, and times when some users were last active (e.g. "ScAryme") you would come to the same conclusion. In addition to that, you should factor in the lack of complaints from the 'alleged team members'.

At least one of those users, (i.e. endlasuresh) has complained. It really shouldn't be a "tag first and ensure innocence later" method to dealing with hearsay evidence.

An absence of refutation doesn't show guilt.

[Lauda]

Not hearsay by part of the accusatory account, no. Perhaps I should clarify. It's hearsay from the user who sent it to the ICO-bumping buster account. Mysterious01.

Yeah, I had to edit my post a few times.

At least one of those users, (i.e. endlasuresh) has complained.

There's at least a dozen of reasons for which that user should be tagged for (chronic lying is a notable one); not the best example.
I won't argue it further. Have fun hunting down these people; I'm already seeing signs of celebrations in off-forum channels (scammers rejoice?).

[Quickseller]

It might be a good idea to either post or review the text of the rating. On its face, many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition.

I am not sure what do you mean by "post or review the text of the rating". Do you think we should first look why someone was tagged, read reference and all that and then tag them   

I am saying that if you read the rating, you will see there is no point to reviewing the reference because there is no indication they are a scammer based on the text of the rating.

many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition

Can you please list all accounts with such rating? I don't want to tag wrong person. Thanks! 

Can I list all of them? No, there are too many. Some examples of this are below:

Left me a false negative rating...[no indication this person is in any way untrustworthy]

Abusing bounties with alt accounts.

I refuse to recognize someone having >2 accounts participating in a signature campaign as being a "scammer" -- they will provide the same amount of advertising as they are getting paid to provide. You may argue these people have a high rate of low quality posts, however if this is true, leaving negative trust for this is only covering up inaction by the administration (at best).

Merit abuse.

Pot, meet kettle.

Plagiarism.

Needs to be dealt with by administration, not a trust issue

Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...

Administration issue, not a trust issue

Extortion attempt.

This rating is legit, if the text of the rating can be substantiated, however I highlight this rating for the irony.

Bamboozled supporter of Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Cash & criminals such as Roger Ver, Jihan & co. I suggest staying away from this user and their products.

Using automated translation tools to defraud campaigns.

If their work quality is subpar, they will ultimately not get hired

Attempted to abuse the content campaign by fraudulently claiming that I made a mistake while the user actually updated the content after it has been reviewed.
Lying baboon; avoid like the plague.

This is far from a comprehensive list, and I just found some examples starting from the most recent ratings Lauda left.

 

[Lauda]

-snip-
This is far from a comprehensive list, and I just found some examples starting from the most recent ratings Lauda left.

Not a single rating on that list is invalid. You don't understand the trust system. Bonus TIL: Cheating and chronic lying are not untrustworthy behavior.
Should anyone be surprised that a petty scammer has twisted views on this? Your frustration has led to some pretty sad behavior. Try harder.

[Veleor]

Can I list all of them? No, there are too many. Some examples of this are below:

Merit abuse.

Pot, meet kettle.

Plagiarism.

Needs to be dealt with by administration, not a trust issue

Kaleridi has been banned. [BPIP]

dumbtool45 is a bounty cheater, merit abuser, plagiarist. [Reference]

[shasan]

Lauda was recently removed from DT2:

As per, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full, Lauda is...

Included by: Blazed & hilariousandco

Excluded by: HostFat, OgNasty & Tomatocage

Have you verified it? I could not see any trust rating on Lauda from HostFat & Tomatocage.

[LoyceV]

Have you verified it? I could not see any trust rating on Lauda from HostFat & Tomatocage.

Yes it's verified. Click the link, it's not about trust ratings, it's about being put on DT2.
See subSTRATA's explanation.

[marlboroza]

~

It wasn't really a question I needed answer 

Bonus TIL: Cheating and chronic lying are not untrustworthy behavior.

I don't get it either.
According to quacky we should trust cheaters, abusers, liars, plagiarists, rule breakers...
It has to be perfectly logical explanation why qs said this.

Perhaps this?

You're also a full-blown scammer-by-proxy through the fact that you sell forum accounts so others can deceive the community.

Yeah, it make sense.

[DarkStar_]

Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...

Administration issue, not a trust issue

Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...

[Quickseller]

Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...

Administration issue, not a trust issue

Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...

Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

[coinlocket$]

Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...

~

Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

No, they are not used for trading but the accounts may possibly sold as happened to a part of my list, here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3063184.0

If you look at post history of some of those accounts they are now bounty spammers.

[Vod]

Here's the list of names:

All of these names have been flagged for priority parsing on BPIP, and will be up to date within 90 mins or so.

This will probably happen more in the future, so I will automate this feature.

[LTU_btc]

Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many accounts which involved in ICO bumping services are also used to participate in bounty campaigns. With red tag they wont be eligible for most of bounty campaigns here, this is why they should be red tagged.

[marlboroza]

~
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many accounts which involved in ICO bumping services are also used to participate in bounty campaigns. With red tag they wont be eligible for most of bounty campaigns here, this is why they should be red tagged.

That is not the reason.
They should be tagged because they are giving fake reviews about various projects which is very shady behavior and it gives fake picture of project. It can be highly misleading for investors, not to mention when someone ask them something in their topic post ends up few pages back because of these idio... accounts.

On side note:





Link is redirecting to air condition site. It says:

LAUDA HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS

Made-to-measure installations for industrial applications
Heating, cooling, chilling from -150 up to 550 °C

Their account temperature is a little lower but they are still very hot 

[The Cryptovator]

LoyceV has been doing grate job. But I am wondering peoples will check this list or not before trade with scammer. If I am not wrong, even people's didn't check red tag during trading especially for account seller. After got scam they make post on Scam Accusation board.

I believe those peoples tagged by Lauda, most of them also tagged by other DT. So even single tagged is enough to visit scammer profile. I am just worried about scammers. So I think it will be better if some others DT checked this list and tag scammer if there is appropriate reference. Never mind if you are not agree with Lauda. But we need prevent scammer anyway. If there was valid reason than scammer can be tag by others DT.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.

Bumping ICO thread really isn't a good practice, especially those are with fake team , plagiarized whitepapers and duplicate website. Obviously they should tag due to scam isn't moderated by forum. It should be handle by trust system. Do you think a decent and legit ICO should use paid bumping ?

[LoyceV]

LoyceV has been doing grate job. But I am wondering peoples will check this list or not before trade with scammer.

This list is meant for other DT-members to check. The average user won't see this list.

Here's the list of names:

All of these names have been flagged for priority parsing on BPIP, and will be up to date within 90 mins or so.

I hope you used my (long) list, and not actmyname's (short) list

Thanks for this, I'll try to update my lists today.