KWH is no longer on this forum

[Vod]

KWH sent me an email asking me to post a signed message to prove he was no longer on the forum.

Code:

1KHjCMDrFxXiDpFnkd3wEuG8oeDcFQvQkY


Account KWH will no longer be active. Any activity or email address
change will not be the original owner. 01/30/2019

H6cmG+3OorZd6m1LGCuY1Dfkds24IWbzk/yBA77do83JK0zuIHuiMiaw4tnQN9Uhj9A0AseXtluxgKit5DximCQ=

KWH posted that address in this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1122175.msg11878066#msg11878066

He also asked that he be removed from any trust lists. 

[suchmoon]

Signature is valid. Had to replace the line break with a space.

[DireWolfM14]

With account sales including private keys, email, etc., it's a crap shoot. Set the criteria for recovery and get the ball rolling; something needs to be done so I volunteered. I spend some time here anyway, may as well benefit the forum.
It shouldn't take a few hours. Set the burden of proof and go from there, if you can't come to some conclusion in 20-30 minutes then it is probably a lost cause.

Ironically this was his last message here on the forum posted back in August.  It appears that his retirement from the forum was not planned.  I didn't get to know him, but he seems like the kind person who'll be missed.

Best wishes to KWH.

Signature verified.

[The Cryptovator]

Signature is valid. Had to replace the line break with a space.

That's what I was missing. I was trying to verify but it was failed. Now got your point and conformed that message has been verified by using brain wallet. But sad to see that one of good user is leaving forum.

[suchmoon]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

[The Cryptovator]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

We can re-tag of his feedback's especially negative. Look like account has changed password recently multiple time but I don't think changed hand. Because sign message is after changed password. Since he declear himself then you shouldn't keep him on trust list. Perhaps LoyceV could make list of his negative feedback's which has only single tag.

8/12/2018 9:53:00 PM         password changed
1/10/2019 2:13:12 AM         password changed
1/11/2019 2:13:12 AM         password changed

Signed message on 30 January 2019 means account isn't compromised yet.

[Vod]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

He left voluntarily - he was done with the drama here.

He did mention one thing to me which hit home.  He said if you are going to take a large system with includes scammers, and you decentralize that system's trust, some of those scammers are going to wind up on default trust.  Which has happened.

[Quickseller]

This is too bad. He was able to help a lot of people who maybe didn't understand all the norms around here not look like a scammer (such as reminding those wanting to start lending threads that someone trusted should hold all collateral).

[Vod]

This is too bad. He was able to help a lot of people who maybe didn't understand all the norms around here not look like a scammer (such as reminding those wanting to start lending threads that someone trusted should hold all collateral).

You are one of the reasons he left, so fuck off with your fake comments.

[Lauda]

This really makes me sad. Removed from my list 

[LoyceV]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

As long as his account isn't compromised, he can stay on DT2. If one of his ratings is proven to be wrong, that might be the moment to consider excluding him.

Perhaps LoyceV could make list of his negative feedback's which has only single tag.

I'm not really in favour of centralizing trust ratings instead of just leaving the original tags visible.

[Timelord2067]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

As long as his account isn't compromised, he can stay on DT2. If one of his ratings is proven to be wrong, that might be the moment to consider excluding him.

Perhaps LoyceV could make list of his negative feedback's which has only single tag.

I'm not really in favour of centralizing trust ratings instead of just leaving the original tags visible.

One? Just one?

I didn't have much in the way of interaction with KWH, but had he been on my DT list, I wouldn't be removing him.  Might just add him to my list.

[LoyceV]

One? Just one?

If a rating is proven to be wrong, it should be removed. If it can't be removed anymore, excluding is the only thing left.
But this isn't relevant yet, he can just stay on DT2.

[MainIbem]

KWH posted lots of useful trust ratings, which is why I included him. Not sure what to do now. I wish he was more specific about his departure, i.e. whether his account has been compromised, in which case he should be excluded.

He left voluntarily - he was done with the drama here.

He did mention one thing to me which hit home.  He said if you are going to take a large system with includes scammers, and you decentralize that system's trust, some of those scammers are going to wind up on default trust.  Which has happened.

Losing such a beloved member is definitely saddening. But it is more worrisome that he left because of a reason so genuine. You guys just have to look at the significance of his action and make the needed corrections to forestall more reputable members leaving also.

[Thule]

One? Just one?

Yes just one......afraid of your false negative ratings?

[Timelord2067]

One? Just one?

If a rating is proven to be wrong, it should be removed. If it can't be removed anymore, excluding is the only thing left.
But this isn't relevant yet, he can just stay on DT2.

I'm puzzled why you would wait until someone has already left to then turn around and pull someone up that they *might* have gotten *one* wrong... What ever happened to peer reviwing as you go?

[LoyceV]

I'm puzzled why you would wait until someone has already left to then turn around and pull someone up that they *might* have gotten *one* wrong... What ever happened to peer reviwing as you go?

I think you misunderstood me: before KWH left, he could take care of ratings by himself. Now he can't do that anymore.

[TalkStar]

He left voluntarily - he was done with the drama here.

He did mention one thing to me which hit home.  He said if you are going to take a large system with includes scammers, and you decentralize that system's trust, some of those scammers are going to wind up on default trust.  Which has happened.

I don't know what to say but we are going miss one trustworthy member of our bitcointalk family. Maybe he can change his mind to get back again. Yeah i also beleive  scammers have a chance to take position on DT list selecting by current DT system. Maybe our DTs will discuss about this very soon.

[Timelord2067]

I'm puzzled why you would wait until someone has already left to then turn around and pull someone up that they *might* have gotten *one* wrong... What ever happened to peer reviwing as you go?

I think you misunderstood me: before KWH left, he could take care of ratings by himself. Now he can't do that anymore.

We've probably both misunderstood each-others questions. Not to worry.