The Pharmacist,actmyname,Vod.. The mafia trying to get controll of bitcointalk ?

[Thule]

d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum? yes they dont for the member who pay $$$$$

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

allegation without proof would be just scammy.

WHy ?Thats exectly what DT2 members are doing

[1714907426]

1714907426

[1714907426]

1714907426

[1714907426]

1714907426

[1714907426]

1714907426

[Vod]

WHy ?Thats exectly what DT2 members are doing

And that's the exact same thing you are doing. 

Please add me to your revenge list bozo - I am enjoying your idiocy. 

[lotfiuser]

d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum? yes they dont for the member who pay $$$$$

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

they got proof that I sold my collateral ?? no so why i have negative trust?

[marlboroza]

d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum? yes they dont for the member who pay $$$$$

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

they got proof that I sold my collateral ?? no so why i have negative trust?

Apples and oranges.

[lotfiuser]

d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum? yes they dont for the member who pay $$$$$

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

they got proof that I sold my collateral ?? no so why i have negative trust?

Apples and oranges.

and tea is red

[Rambotnic]

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request.
From what i read so far, by requesting loan you should provide 120% collateral right?
So basically you paying 20% above of what you get to not make the person who give you loan in loss right?
In that case physically you can't even bring any loss to the person who give loan right? He always leave with 20% profit or even less if you pay your loan because he take less % right?
Consider person is looking for loan he's looking also for quick cash to pay something.
So trying to sell the collateral before anyone give you loan will bring the person who asking for loan less loss.
The only "bad" thing here is that selling your collateral providing valid proof that you are not looking to repay your loan and just let the person who giving the loan with the 20% profit.
So the only wrong thing i see here is that the person who asking for loan is badly looking for cash and either looking for loan or sell his collateral.
What's the idea of the red trust if the person who give the loan will end up with 20% profit from the collateral  in the end?
I know its not something good to ask for loan which you have no intentions to pay back because you also looking to sell your collateral but in the end the person who give loan leave with 120% collateral  which is 20% profit ??
Correct me if i am wrong please because its my first time talking about loans and stuff...
I never needed loan to understand the full process but from simple view of person who never needed or ask for loan in the end i always see profit for the person who give the loan.
I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust.

*I'm not here to defend or protect someone but clear for myself why people get red trust for that.

[sbogovac]

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request. [...] I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust. [...]

Let's see:

collateral (kɒˈlætərəl; kə-)
   1. (Banking & Finance)
      a. security pledged for the repayment of a loan

So while the loan is still outstanding, the "collateral" is still "pledged". If someone tries to sell the collateral while the loan has not been payed in full (plus interest, if agreed upon), that person is deemed to be either a) stupid (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person) or, b) untrustworthy (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person)...

[Rambotnic]

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request. [...] I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust. [...]

Let's see:

collateral (kɒˈlætərəl; kə-)
   1. (Banking & Finance)
      a. security pledged for the repayment of a loan

So while the loan is still outstanding, the "collateral" is still "pledged". If someone tries to sell the collateral while the loan has not been payed in full (plus interest, if agreed upon), that person is deemed to be either a) stupid (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person) or, b) untrustworthy (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person)...

Isn't the collateral will be in deposit to the person who give the loan or escrow so the person who needs loan can't actually do anything with it ?
So searching to sell the collateral and also offer it for loan in same place its not something that can affect the person who give the loan or i am wrong?
Soon as the escrow or the person who give the loan takes the collateral, the person who needs loan can't do anything with it because its not in his position.
So i understand so far searching for the best way to earn fast money either ask for loan with valid collateral and in same place selling the collateral is something wrong.
I guess the person who needs loan searching for the fastest way to get this money either by loan with collateral or sell the collateral.
The only bad thing leaves here that the person who request the loan proves he's not even thinking to repay his loan consider he's also selling his collateral.

[lotfiuser]

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request. [...] I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust. [...]

Let's see:

collateral (kɒˈlætərəl; kə-)
   1. (Banking & Finance)
      a. security pledged for the repayment of a loan

So while the loan is still outstanding, the "collateral" is still "pledged". If someone tries to sell the collateral while the loan has not been payed in full (plus interest, if agreed upon), that person is deemed to be either a) stupid (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person) or, b) untrustworthy (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person)...

Isn't the collateral will be in deposit to the person who give the loan or escrow so the person who needs loan can't actually do anything with it ?
So searching to sell the collateral and also offer it for loan in same place its not something that can affect the person who give the loan or i am wrong?
Soon as the escrow or the person who give the loan takes the collateral, the person who needs loan can't do anything with it because its not in his position.
So i understand so far searching for the best way to earn fast money either ask for loan with valid collateral and in same place selling the collateral is something wrong.
I guess the person who needs loan searching for the fastest way to get this money either by loan with collateral or sell the collateral.
The only bad thing leaves here that the person who request the loan proves he's not even thinking to repay his loan consider he's also selling his collateral.

how im going to sell something  that i use as collateral ? iwas trying either to sell it or get loan by that moment so if i ahve sell it i cant use it as collateral and if i get a loan i cant sellits eassy as 1,2,3

[sbogovac]

[...] Isn't the collateral will be in deposit to the person who give the loan or escrow so the person who needs loan can't actually do anything with it ?
So searching to sell the collateral and also offer it for loan in same place its not something that can affect the person who give the loan or i am wrong?
Soon as the escrow or the person who give the loan takes the collateral, the person who needs loan can't do anything with it because its not in his position.
So i understand so far searching for the best way to earn fast money either ask for loan with valid collateral and in same place selling the collateral is something wrong.
I guess the person who needs loan searching for the fastest way to get this money either by loan with collateral or sell the collateral.
The only bad thing leaves here that the person who request the loan proves he's not even thinking to repay his loan consider he's also selling his collateral.

[...] how im going to sell something  that i use as collateral ? iwas trying either to sell it or get loan by that moment so if i ahve sell it i cant use it as collateral and if i get a loan i cant sellits eassy as 1,2,3

The fact that someone even tries to sell the asset that has been offered for collateral is reason enough for a lot of people to mistrust someone... for you two it isn't, OK. But for a lot of other people it is (whether you think it is "fair" or "logical" is irrelevant)... I hope you learned that lesson.

[Anduck]

Honestly, sometimes I think we should just get rid of the trust system and just let users leave feedback that doesn't effect a score, but of course this would really only benefit scammers who would then have a field day without their red paint, but maybe we should just let people be reckless with their own money. Whatever we do to try curb abuse people will just abuse that or find a way to game it so there's nothing we can really do to please everyone.

In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. I wouldn't be against ditching the whole DT system completely.. and let members make their own trust lists.

[sbogovac]

[...] let members make their own trust lists.

Isn't that how it works now...? 

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Members can make their own trust lists, and I would wager that most users who have been around here for more than a few months (excluding the signature spammers who probably don't even know what trust is) do exactly that. I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed.

I do however agree that a handful more DT1 members, and therefore more active DT2 members, would be a good addition to the trust system. Also removing the inactive members would probably be a good idea too. For example:

xkrikl - Inactive for 4 years. Only feedback ever left is a positive rating for one of the biggest scammers ever.
Tywill - Active for a grand total of 27 days in 2013. Only feedback ever left is a negative against a similarly inactive account.
sayulita - Inactive for 9 months. -2 default trust as potentially compromised. Total of 2 feedback left.
teukon - Inactive for 2 years. 1 feedback left.
ioxoi - Inactive for 7 months. No feedback left.

[coinlocket$]

~

I agree about the low activity of DT1 and DT2 nowadays but I don't agree with removing inactive DT2 with at least the ones with 1 feedback or more.
Keep the one with 0 feedback sents can also be dangerous if their account will be hacked in the future, or I'm wrong?

[BitcoinSupremo]

Honestly, sometimes I think we should just get rid of the trust system and just let users leave feedback that doesn't effect a score, but of course this would really only benefit scammers who would then have a field day without their red paint, but maybe we should just let people be reckless with their own money. Whatever we do to try curb abuse people will just abuse that or find a way to game it so there's nothing we can really do to please everyone.

In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. I wouldn't be against ditching the whole DT system completely.. and let members make their own trust lists.

Well you didn't tell us anything new, the DT circle is closed and the only people who are allowed to enter are the ones who leave tons but tons of non valid negative feedback. They don't care even when they are wrong they continue their wrong doing and do not give a fuck about what really is going on in the forum, as long as they are making money off of their DT status they don't care. This is not what Satoshi wanted, this is not decentralization and that is why Bitcoin is sinking (metaphorally speaking here and joking of course).

[Anduck]

[...] let members make their own trust lists.

Isn't that how it works now...? 

Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too.

[sbogovac]

[...] let members make their own trust lists.

Isn't that how it works now...? 

Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too.

Maybe you don't (make your own trust list), but I agree with:

[...] Members can make their own trust lists, and I would wager that most users who have been around here for more than a few months (excluding the signature spammers who probably don't even know what trust is) do exactly that. I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed. [...]

[Anduck]

[...] let members make their own trust lists.

Isn't that how it works now...? 

Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too.

Maybe you don't (make your own trust list), but I agree with:

[...] Members can make their own trust lists, and I would wager that most users who have been around here for more than a few months (excluding the signature spammers who probably don't even know what trust is) do exactly that. I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed. [...]

You can go look at peoples trust list, they are public. You can see that pretty much everyone uses DefaultTrust (and some customize it, but still use DT as the base.)

[The Sceptical Chymist]

They don't care even when they are wrong they continue their wrong doing and do not give a fuck about what really is going on in the forum, as long as they are making money off of their DT status they don't care.

I would love it if you would name names here, though I doubt you're going to do it.  The DT members I see who are actively tagging scammers actually do care about the forum, and as to the part I've bolded above I'm really curious who you think is making money from their status as a DT member.

I sure as hell haven't earned a penny since I've been on DT, and it's been mostly a headache from the complaints and the "work" I do is on my own time and is precisely because I do care about improving bitcointalk.  When I tag people, I try to get it right but sometimes I don't and when evidence presents itself that's contrary to the neg I've left, I'm not above swallowing my pride and removing the neg.  I'm speaking for myself here, of course, but none of the other DT members active in tagging cheaters are earning any money as a result of that as far as I know. 

I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed.

I think DT serves a purpose, but you can't rely on it too much, and I agree that it shouldn't be scrapped altogether.  Some changes might be in order based on what you wrote about some DT members not being active for a long time.  Those are DT1 members, though, and that's Theymos's call. 

I think people ought to create their own trust lists after they've been here a while and figure out who appears trustworthy.  There's never any certainty about that, as I've seen multiple DT members lose their status for a variety of reasons, and anyone can either go rogue, get hacked, or sell their account to a scammer--you just never know.

[sbogovac]

TL;DR:

[...] I think DT serves a purpose, but you can't rely on it too much [...]

FTFY...