DefaultTrust changes

[owlcatz]

Lol... what the fuck is that? Your way of saying you are fucking bitcoin God? Lol.... Hahahaha... I don't even have time to try and figure you out anymore, you are just nuts man.... FFS...

(No meme comes close hahaha)!

Also, go get some professional help for your malignant narcissism. It is getting old around here.

[1713478053]

1713478053

[1713478053]

1713478053

[1713478053]

1713478053

[1713478053]

1713478053

[1713478053]

1713478053

[1713478053]

1713478053

[JayJuanGee]

Lol... what the fuck is that? Your way of saying you are fucking bitcoin God? Lol.... Hahahaha... I don't even have time to try and figure you out anymore, you are just nuts man.... FFS...

(No meme comes close hahaha)!

Also, go get some professional help for your malignant narcissism. It is getting old around here.

How about this one?

  hahahahaha   

[lobcmt2]

The Default Trust Changes give opportunities for some self-made users to become DT1 members.
They are:
#1: iasenko, Date registered: November 07, 2017, 08:39:50 PM
# 2: coinlocket$, Date registered: November 22, 2017, 08:49:45 PM
#3: asche, Date registered: January 04, 2018, 08:00:55 AM
# 4: ICOEthics, Date registered: June 12, 2018, 07:14:43 PM
# 5: Coolcryptovator, Date registered: March 28, 2018, 06:41:03 AM
I only counted cases that were Member and below at the start of merit system.
For the first two cases (iasenko, and coinlocket$), I am not sure that which ranks they have at the start of merit system (due to their registered day in November 2017). Need their help to confirm.

Those case of new DT1 members are very good example that users can rank up with merit system.
More importanly, they can be able to become DT1 members, who got trusts from forum community, and play important role in bitcointalk forum.

From those cases, and from my own experience, I agree with the following statement:
"What does not kill you, will makes you stronger".
Merit system is a challenge, but it has actually made forum users (real ones) become much stronger more than one year after its beginning.

Full list of new DT1 Members (that I used for screening) is there:
The new DT1 list (update on 29/1/2019), by coinlocket$

[Quickseller]

The Default Trust Changes give opportunities for some self-made users to become DT1 members.
They are:
#1: iasenko, Date registered: November 07, 2017, 08:39:50 PM
# 2: coinlocket$, Date registered: November 22, 2017, 08:49:45 PM
#3: asche, Date registered: January 04, 2018, 08:00:55 AM
# 4: ICOEthics, Date registered: June 12, 2018, 07:14:43 PM
# 5: Coolcryptovator, Date registered: March 28, 2018, 06:41:03 AM
I only counted cases that were Member and below at the start of merit system.
For the first two cases (iasenko, and coinlocket$), I am not sure that which ranks they have at the start of merit system (due to their registered day in November 2017). Need their help to confirm.

This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.

Those case of new DT1 members are very good example that users can rank up with merit system.

The people who have ranked up after the merit system was implemented are few and far between.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record

lot of noob dt ass kissers on dt that can only perrot dt for merit and inclusion
perrot backs up dt
merit makes dt
self sustaining

[KingZee]

This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.

Honestly I have to agree with you, knowing full well the majority of the forum doesn't. (Even if they might say otherwise, their votes say something else.)

I'd LOVE to see a trust system based on nothing but trades, risked amounts, and anything with money involved, but apparently its too hard to implement.

But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.)

[Lauda]

This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.

-snip-
But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.)

Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?

[H8bussesNbicycles]

If you want lauda to be removed from dt this is how you do it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

[KingZee]

Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

False Dilemma is a type of logical fallacy, which is a belief or claim based on mistaken reasoning. False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true

Stop trying to smartass me Lauda. Every reply you've ever given me so far was some sort of attempt at dramatizing the situation or taunting me. I speak and express genuine concerns I have, through my own experiences, and if I ever mention you, I only refer to you based on your actions (a.k.a if anyone did what you did, I'd express my disagreement against that specific thing, exactly the same way.) Since I really couldn't care who you are behind that keyboard in this virtual world, I was tempted to ignore you, but I realised I should let you know why.

If you keep writing these jokes of arguments, and kind of attacks that only mean to get some sort of response out of me, from now on I'm going to ignore you. I never meant to dislike you, I always have disagreements with some people, and it's normal. But for you, outside of your judgements on "scammers", you're actually a very childish person. And I know myself, I just couldn't give two fucks about drama. So, peace.

[Lauda]

Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

False Dilemma is a type of logical fallacy, which is a belief or claim based on mistaken reasoning. False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true

Which is not a fallacy in my statement - I made none; it's the sum of your past few replies. Stop using things that you don't fully understand.

Stop trying to smartass me Lauda. Every reply you've ever given me so far was some sort of attempt at dramatizing the situation or taunting me. I speak and express genuine concerns I have, through my own experiences, and if I ever mention you, I only refer to you based on your actions (a.k.a if anyone did what you did, I'd express my disagreement against that specific thing, exactly the same way.) Since I really couldn't care who you are behind that keyboard in this virtual world, I was tempted to ignore you, but I realised I should let you know why.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

If you keep writing these jokes of arguments, and kind of attacks that only mean to get some sort of response out of me, from now on I'm going to ignore you. I never meant to dislike you, I always have disagreements with some people, and it's normal. But for you, outside of your judgements on "scammers", you're actually a very childish person. And I know myself, I just couldn't give two fucks about drama. So, peace.

Yes, now go for the personality; that will show them just how legitimate your "concerns" really are. I guess when you're in a pay-per-post campaign anything goes as long as it has any substance (who needs consistency :shrug:).

What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.

No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your  exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation.

Alright, the KingFool thinks that it is more appropriate/less power hungry or whatever he's talking about to not ask someone to revise feedback/fix their list but just instantly exclude them. How many accusations of bullshit do you think we'll see once more than half of DT2 is kicked out?

Quoting this again as things got side-tracked. Build your own using mine as base and stay safe.

-snip-

Code:

mexxer-2

Code:

shorena

Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon.

Mexxer-2 has also been covered.

[Quickseller]

This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.

Honestly I have to agree with you, knowing full well the majority of the forum doesn't. (Even if they might say otherwise, their votes say something else.)

I'd LOVE to see a trust system based on nothing but trades, risked amounts, and anything with money involved, but apparently its too hard to implement.

But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.)

I don’t think it is best to have a trust system in which all ratings are based on trades. There are plenty of reasonably legitimate reasons to leave both positive and negative ratings for non-trade related reasons, an attempt to scam is a good example of this.

If you are going to have any influence in the trust system, at a bare minimum, you should have trade experience. Similarly, someone with a lot of positive trust, should have trade experience, maybe not necessarily from the specific ratings they have, but in general, positive ratings should be observations of someone being able to trade and be trusted.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

dt of this forum right now is being overrun by power hungry clans along with their 3rd world suck ups

[JusticeForYou]

I've seen enough of your "personality" in the off-forum chatrooms, PMs, and other places where you think nobody is watching. You're not a genuinely honest person by a long shot. Genuinely honest people don't do go around threatening others like that. Also - genuinely honest people typically don't feel that much need to espouse their own good deeds. Usually those speak for themselves.

Do you really think you can judge once "personality" so accurately in the virtual world, you are nothing in front of OgNasty to hamper him in any situation as you are just like a noob. Do you have any proves to your claim? also which off-forum chatrooms are you linking this to?

Again, a attempt to hamper a person by just directing the conversation to off-topic and putting false claims on a very reputed member of the community.

You are just proving most of the DT accusations made by trusted people here right.

Again, notice the complete reliance on personal attacks, accusation, and inquisition. Zero discussion of the arguments presented. This is all these people know how to do, mob, bully, and intimidate. This is the type of person that seeks positions of power. These type of people need to be leashed by a simple protocol to keep their hunger for control over anyone who questions them in check.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

also which off-forum chatrooms are you linking this to?

posts some proofs of this chatrooms

[KingZee]

I don’t think it is best to have a trust system in which all ratings are based on trades. There are plenty of reasonably legitimate reasons to leave both positive and negative ratings for non-trade related reasons, an attempt to scam is a good example of this.

If you are going to have any influence in the trust system, at a bare minimum, you should have trade experience. Similarly, someone with a lot of positive trust, should have trade experience, maybe not necessarily from the specific ratings they have, but in general, positive ratings should be observations of someone being able to trade and be trusted.

I'm talking more about green ratings rather than red. Still, even a scam attempt is considered trade related. It can have a risked amount, and is not something subjective to the person leaving red trust. But it's obviously good to leave red ratings on behaviour like account trading, shady behaviour and whatnot.

It's not okay to leave green ratings for "valuable contribution" to the forums. When someone is tagged green, imo I want that to mean that the person is trusted with money. Anyone can act "nice".

[suchmoon]

Do you really think you can judge once "personality" so accurately in the virtual world, you are nothing in front of OgNasty to hamper him in any situation as you are just like a noob. Do you have any proves to your claim? also which off-forum chatrooms are you linking this to?

Again, a attempt to hamper a person by just directing the conversation to off-topic and putting false claims on a very reputed member of the community.

You're right, it's veering off-topic so I hope you'll take your time to read these threads and post there if you have any further questions:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677360#msg32677360
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49147916#msg49147916

That's just the few I was able to find on a short notice. Google around if you need more.

[TECSHARE]

Do you really think you can judge once "personality" so accurately in the virtual world, you are nothing in front of OgNasty to hamper him in any situation as you are just like a noob. Do you have any proves to your claim? also which off-forum chatrooms are you linking this to?

Again, a attempt to hamper a person by just directing the conversation to off-topic and putting false claims on a very reputed member of the community.

You're right, it's veering off-topic so I hope you'll take your time to read these threads and post there if you have any further questions:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677360#msg32677360
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49147916#msg49147916

That's just the few I was able to find on a short notice. Google around if you need more.

Not seeing anything proving dishonesty there... I see lots of accusations from people with ulterior motives though.

[JusticeForYou]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754

The person tagged by OGnasty was a proven scammer and he pointed a good one though. You can see some of the proves here:

the reply was given by a trusted campaign manager to EOAKLAND

Do you thing reapplying will get you selected? Your post history is trash. Start posting more constructively

this proves he was shitposting.

Also, the person who got negative trust was early blackmailer:
EOAKLAND - blackmailer
this proves he was an early blackmailer

All these things make him worthy of tag and also for spamming a scam accusation with fake replies.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677360#msg32677360

No solid prooves that OgNasty was involved in this as anyone could hamper a persons identity on the telegram ( you could relate much of the ICO scams there). So, there is no conclusion to this case as the person on telegram could just be a troller. And at the same time, Ognasty personally tried to file a police complaint advised telegram to file a police report, which was the right thing to do against the scammer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49147916#msg49147916

I read most of the chat in the screenshots here, it doesn't seem OgNasty is wrong in any way as he is just trying to let a campaign manager know that do not accept a troll in the campaign and on the other hand OG get a reply that he is "buying trusts" very ridiculous opinion.


None of this proves to show that OGnasty has a bad "personality" in his real life and you accused him of wrong being.

[suchmoon]

this proves he was shitposting.

Relevance?

Also, the person who got negative trust was early blackmailer:
EOAKLAND - blackmailer
this proves he was an early blackmailer

You probably haven't read the thread. And again - relevance? Og neg-trusted this user on accusation of being a purchased account, but after that was disproved he came up with a bunch of slimy excuses to not remove the rating. Nothing to do with shitposting or blackmail. Maybe he needs to revise the feedback again.

All these things make him worthy of tag and also for spamming a scam accusation with fake replies.

You still don't seem to grasp the difference between forum rules and the trust system.

No solid prooves that OgNasty was involved in this as anyone could hamper a persons identity on the telegram ( you could relate much of the ICO scams there). So, there is no conclusion to this case as the person on telegram could just be a troller. And at the same time, Ognasty personally tried to file a police complaint against the scammer.

You probably haven't read the thread. Fun fact: Og neg-trusted another user for making the same assumption that you just made (that he contacted the police). Let's see if he neg-trusts you as well.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49147916#msg49147916

I read most of the chat in the screenshots here, it doesn't seem OgNasty is wrong in any way as he is just trying to let a campaign manager know that do not accept a troll in the campaign and on the other hand OG get a reply that he is "buying trusts" very ridiculous opinion.

Og is threatening to contact the person's employer unless he gets his way. I happen to think that's quite shitty.

None of this proves to show that OGnasty has a bad "personality" in his real life and you accused him of wrong being.

Good for you. I see it differently.

[TECSHARE]

this proves he was shitposting.

Relevance?

Also, the person who got negative trust was early blackmailer:
EOAKLAND - blackmailer
this proves he was an early blackmailer

You probably haven't read the thread. And again - relevance? Og neg-trusted this user on accusation of being a purchased account, but after that was disproved he came up with a bunch of slimy excuses to not remove the rating. Nothing to do with shitposting or blackmail. Maybe he needs to revise the feedback again.

All these things make him worthy of tag and also for spamming a scam accusation with fake replies.

You still don't seem to grasp the difference between forum rules and the trust system.

No solid prooves that OgNasty was involved in this as anyone could hamper a persons identity on the telegram ( you could relate much of the ICO scams there). So, there is no conclusion to this case as the person on telegram could just be a troller. And at the same time, Ognasty personally tried to file a police complaint against the scammer.

You probably haven't read the thread. Fun fact: Og neg-trusted another user for making the same assumption that you just made (that he contacted the police). Let's see if he neg-trusts you as well.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49147916#msg49147916

I read most of the chat in the screenshots here, it doesn't seem OgNasty is wrong in any way as he is just trying to let a campaign manager know that do not accept a troll in the campaign and on the other hand OG get a reply that he is "buying trusts" very ridiculous opinion.

Og is threatening to contact the person's employer unless he gets his way. I happen to think that's quite shitty.

None of this proves to show that OGnasty has a bad "personality" in his real life and you accused him of wrong being.

Good for you. I see it differently.

What gives you or anyone else the right to attempt to harass or intimidate him into compliance with ratings you demand? None of this is any proof of wrong doing, just more simplistic guilt via association and guilt because he didn't immediately acquiesce to your demands for compliance. Like a cop arresting some one for resisting arrest screaming "STOP RESISTING" as you hit them and kneel on his neck as he tries to breathe handcuffed.

It is circular logic. Your authority is your mandate and your mandate is your authority. Do what I say or else.