Trust flags

[Hueristic]

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.

As much as I hated them asking KYC, I do recall receiving warnings about lowering withdrawal limits. Then after a while, they suddenly reduced it to 0 until I sent them an angry looking selfie.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast

I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.

There was never an issue with support not replying, the issue is what support replied (multiple times). They continually ignored the fact that I refused to agree with the Terms of service but would provide all KYC ( spelled this out in plain English in multiple emails)  and all they did in response was repeat "Do KYC from this link to unlock your account" over and over. The first thing that link did was make you agree to not hold them liable. That is called extortion, waiving my civil rights to sue is harmful and therefor fits the definition. I refused to waive my rights by agreeing to their terms and therefore have my funds held hostage. And yes as others have stated that was after they publicly announced that all funds would be allowed to be withdrawn if a person did not want to do KYC, they reneged on that promise.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast

I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.

I think it is acceptable with support tickets. I am not sure about average time of responses of all Poloniex support tickets but I guess the pace has been faster and more acceptable after Circle steps in.
KYC on Poloniex, if I remembered correctly, announced officially and Poloniex users were given weeks to finish their KYCs back in early of 2018. Additionally, it mainly implemented by Poloniex because US government requirements, not solely from Poloniex team. The positive thing with their new KYC verification procedure, after that is all users (including new registered users) don't have to wait for weeks or months to increase their level of daily withdrawal limits to $25,000.

We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.

You apparently decided to waive your rights to sue them, well I have evidence of them manipulating the margin trading and may one day exercise my rights therefore I will not waive them.

Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that after the grace period, you could still withdraw funds. Just not trade.
Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that the grace period would be x amount of time, right until it suddenly was y amount of time (0).

True

The positive thing about implementing KYC was that every minor, anyone from a 3rd world country no longer had access to their funds, potentially forever.

I'm not sure I agree that was a positive as it gave them the ammo for the shady shit they have pulled since then, like clams from all the wallets that were unclaimed. I had no Idea they even had that shitcoin listed, If I cared I would go back and see if they added it later just so they could pull this move.

*Sorry about the derail guys, I hadn't planned this and it's not like anything can be done in this context as they have no presence that I am aware of on this forum.
** Also I apologize for typo's the last few days as I drenched my keyboard in coffee and have alot of sticky keys ATM (which I've noticed the spell checker seems to like to change words as opposed to fixing spelling). 

[1715681907]

1715681907

[malevolent]

I've posted about it months ago. No admin or moderator even bothered with it. There is this idiot, Buzzlieve1992 who have literally spammed THOUSANDS of negative feedback lines to legit people, yet nothing happened to him, nor was the trade rating spam removed. So I can tell you from personal experience ( with proof ) that nothing will be fixed.

Only theymos (maybe Cyrus too, I don't know) can remove spammy Trust ratings. Maybe they missed your post or thread, send theymos a PM then.

I'm not sure I agree that was a positive as it gave them the ammo for the shady shit they have pulled since then, like clams from all the wallets that were unclaimed. I had no Idea they even had that shitcoin listed, If I cared I would go back and see if they added it later just so they could pull this move.

I think he meant 'good', as in it was good for their wallets, they made easy money by stealing from their users.

[xtraelv]

How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

For instance this guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939.0

Who is attached to multiple alts - is a criminal facing extradition and uses false identities to promote questionable projects ?


I want to get my head around the flag system before using it.

[LoyceV]

How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

You can only use a Newbie warning flag.
If a victim shows up, he can use a stronger flag which can be supported by others. I think this can easily be abused though, anyone can create a Newbie account and say he's a victim just to create a flag.

[The-One-Above-All]

How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

You can only use a Newbie warning flag.
If a victim shows up, he can use a stronger flag which can be supported by others. I think this can easily be abused though, anyone can create a Newbie account and say he's a victim just to create a flag.

I don't think that would be accepted as evidence they lost money would it?

We need to keep quite strict about this kind of thing else we will end up with the same bunch of trust abusers using all kinds of mental gymnastics and new accounts to create flags for lemons and imaginary losses they didn't have to suffer themselves or didn't really happen at all.

You would surely need to provide some evidence that exists on this board that you were a victim of a SCAM.

We have a nice shiny flag (started by a proven scammer lauda and supported by his usual gang of asskissing wretches and a retarded mental case timelord ) using some mental gymnastics to say we are HIGHLY DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE MONEY HERE AND WE CANT WAIT TO SCAM THEM OUT OF ALL THEIR BITCOINS  when we have never dealt or mentioned or traded for goods or money here ever.

We don't mind the immediate and observable clear abuse of the LEMONS FLAG which we are pleased has limited damage to a NON SCAMMING account for daring to mention the the truth here, but to allow such flagrant and obvious abuse of stronger flags is something WE HOPE the bullies will not stop THEYMOS acting on and blacklisting these pieces of untrustworthy scum.

[Flying Hellfish]

How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

For instance this guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939.0

Who is attached to multiple alts - is a criminal facing extradition and uses false identities to promote questionable projects ?


I want to get my head around the flag system before using it.

Unless you can prove the user in question contractually violated you, all you can leave is the newbie warning flag (type 1).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Not a fan of this system.

poncho, if you're reading this, please reach out to me. no matter when you see this message. you know how.

[asu]

Not a fan of this system.

Trust system don’t need you.

[suchmoon]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

[bill gator]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

If I had to guess, that was probably the purpose of the post.

[hd49728]

Not a fan of this system.

At least the new system does not show max negative trust -9999. It is good.

[Khaos77]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  

[mosprognoz]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  

Congrats dude.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2522969

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  

suchmoon is not Lauda.

[Khaos77]

Not a fan of this system.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  

Congrats dude.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2522969

  ,  old news

The before red trust queen and her cohorts , did falsely accuse me , only ~10 days before their reign of terror ended,
No hard feelings on my side.  

suchmoon is not Lauda.

Thanks ,
I'll make a mental note of just minion.  

[FFrankie]

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

[Khaos77]

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Flag system is more fair  than the old system where people abused it with no 3rd party verification or appeals.

At least with the Flag system, their is an option to oppose a flag to make it inactive.
Nothing like that existed on the old system.

[Steamtyme]

That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question ~snipped~

If you want I created a topic earlier along these same lines, Campaign Managers - Ineligible users based on Feedback and Flags. I've been curious to see how the new systems would work in these cases. I still think negative feedback has the same effect of tainting an accounts visibility. I do think the color should have remained red.

[xtraelv]

Also how does this flag system apply to e.g. the CEO or founder of an LLC  that goes bankrupt or causes some users to loose funds ?

They don't have a contract with any of the users. The contract is between the user and the LLC.

So either no flag or a newbie flag is used ?

[The-One-Above-All]

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Well that demonstrates you are unable to comprehend what this thread undeniably demonstrates

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

Why should ANYONE that is not CLEARLY demonstrated to have scammed someone out of money or attempted to scam someone out of money be given a RED DANGER and message saying they are a CLEAR DANGER TO MEMBERS FINANCIALLY. Makes zero sense for someone that tried to warn the board about a DT members past scamming be given a tag that says they are a financial danger? how would that be fair? or useful? it would be confusing and would facilitate scamming.

The clear point is you can not allow SUBJECTIVE and GAMED metrics to be a base for anything. They are not reliable metrics and merit is pretty much MEANINGLESS as suchmoon correctly recognized after cryptohunter helped her gain some clarity on the entire subject.

This seems like a concern of people that want UNFAIR advantage for sig campaigns themselves.

If the campaign manager can NOT demonstrate the person does NOT meet the transparent threshold for post quality and can NOT demonstrate he is a scammer then they should be allowed on to the sig campaign on a first come first served basis. This is the only fair way UNLESS he wants to go to a LOT more trouble himself IE to garner a lot of interest and then demonstrate clearly he is selecting the best posters that are NOT scammers.  This will NOT be within the capacity of the low functioning campaign managers we currently have here. You will then need the smartest people on the board (not ex bin men)  that are capable of clearly demonstrating WHY certain members posts are more VALUABLE than others. That is not a task for 99.9% of meta posters.

I mean really perhaps you should stipulate that only the MOST technically proficient members that are ABLE to digest complex designs on white papers to see if the design is plausible and valuable should be campaign managers for NEW alt projects.  Therefore ensuring we don't get a ton of HUGE ICOS sucking peoples bitcoins away for vaporware and projects that would require multiple nobel prizes to reach early milestones.

The real problem here is that most people are quite low functioning and would have no chance of really isolating the most valuable posters, this is clear from the merit system where most merit is allocated on political grounds on a tiny sub board and given out by tiny tiny tiny fraction of members that are the primary receivers . So if you get average joe's as campaign managers then they need to set a threshold they can comprehend and say if the members posts meet this and have no scammed people for money or tried to then they get accepted first come first served.

It will be our latest goal here to ensure the insider gangs gaming of the top sig spots comes to an end.


@ xtraelv

I guess you mean lose funds? even then intent would surely be the key factor here to a scam tag. Bankrupt is going to be hard to prove it was a scam in most cases I would guess. Gross negligence is it scamming? some may say it could get a higher flag than a lemons flag.
Some people you are just going to have to warn people on thread also. For instance cryptopia ? what would most say about this? scam? negligence? I guess until the entire debacle is done we won't know. Looks like an exit scam but impossible to say for sure.