THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here.

[The-One-Above-All]

Local rule - this is addressed to theymos only. Therefore only his opinion is on topic and relevant. Nobody except theymos and our selves may post on this thread.


If you win the debate ( by debunking our central points) we will leave this meta board and not return.

We have lost all patience with this now.

We want to discuss merit and how empowering those that cycle it openly to each other (for posts that are of low value, or even trolling, breaking the rules of permitted flow)  is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Will you dare debate this with us or not?

You are increasingly centralizing power to those handful of people that have undeniable and independently verifiable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.  This again is quite undeniable.

You are allowing and sanctioning those same bunch of scammers and their supporters to punish whistleblowers. You are empowering these scammers to do so.

The ONLY hope is that you have not grasped this is exactly what is happening.

YES OR NO - you will debate or not?


No point saying no because your posts are boring, or no because it's bullshit or no because you must be now banned, or sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.

If you ignore this post or say no, then it is quite obvious that you are unable to debunk our central points. Therefore you are fully aware that you have enabled, empowered and rewarded a bunch of clear scammers and their supporters and placed at disadvantage any that wish to speak out against them.

MERIT is the key cancer here to this rot that has set in. What are you going to do about it? why are you continually building upon it.

How can you sit back and watch those with observable instances of clear financially motivated wrong doing and bunch of people that support that wrong doing be called DEFAULT TRUST 1

You define default trust 1 via your "merit system" and design. You are instructing the entire board that these scammers and their supporters are those they should trust in? That is dangerous and immoral since you MUST BE aware of this by now.

Stop hiding up. Why not have a sensible debate and crush our central points one by one. Then we will see WE are on the wrong path no you and this board.

[1714129942]

1714129942

[1714129942]

1714129942

[1714129942]

1714129942

[Tytanowy Janusz]

We - you and bunch of your alts? It looks like that
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"

[The-One-Above-All]

We - you and bunch of your alts? It looks like that
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"


Picture of touchnowmyanus's mommy's face during super anal meat injection by the true legend...haha

Dear touchnowmyanus

Stop derailing our post fool. Theymos is not scared of the central points here. He will soon be here to debunk all of those concerns in the OP.

Learn to read the local rules ass licker.

Get your mintdice everyone - more gambling spam - promoted by a real btc enthusiast. Mintdice everyone. Mintdice. LOL

[AdolfinWolf]

Dear touchnowmyanus

Stop derailing our post fool. Theymos is not scared of the central points here. He will soon be here to debunk all of those concerns in the OP.

Learn to read the local rules ass licker.

I fear that whomever tries to refute your points (theymos) simply ends up with you in your endless circular reasoning fallacy, thus making your points "irrefutable".

Not to mention that your way of providing arguments usually ends in 10000 words+ of mostly complete gibberish which instantly induces a terrible headache the moment i look at your damn post.
If you really want to start a discussion about the "centralization" of the forum, this is, again, not the way to do it.

[o_e_l_e_o]

[cabalism13]

I am theymos. Therefore my answer is:

No because your posts are boring

No because it's bullshit

No because you must be now banned

Sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.

[LoyceV]

Cryptohunter vs theymos, always a good read whenever theymos engages:

Exhibit A

My opinion is that I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere.

theymos 01 - 00 cryptohunter
Exhibit B

Which mod deleted it?

I did. Feel free to rant all you want in your own topics, but quit derailing unrelated topics.

theymos 02 - 00 cryptohunter
Exhibit C

We see you doing this over and over again. There are 61 good reports against you in the last 60 days. You're going to get banned if you keep this up.

theymos 03 - 00 cryptohunter

Nobody except theymos and our selves may post on this thread.

Sue me!

Wow this is Legendary, my 10000^th post

[eddie13]

OP have you ever seen any system work out 100% optimally in absolutely every aspect?

No.. They are about compromise to achieve a goal.. Even Bitcoin is far from optimal relating to TX throughput and energy consumption, but is the best system yet to achieve the goal and is this way to achieve the goals of decentralization and security..

The goal of the merit system is to slow down sig spammers and account farmers.. It is working but their are casualties where it is not 100% optimal for all users.. It is sub-optimal for many average users and over-optimal for the top users..

The DT system's goal is decentralization and the casualty is drama and infighting and also the disadvantage of users the merit system is sub-optimal for.. I still think it will settle out, and is settling out, but the waves are still bouncing around in the pool from the cannonball that was thrown in when it was implemented..
A subset of users got a big head start because they were already using trust lists and were some of the first to act because they are most on top of new happenings.. Maybe they have been trying to keep it a bit too exclusive to like minded users and supporters but it is continually decentralizing and diversifying to many users of many mindsets..

The bumping system now is a bit centralized to the favor of users who are in the over-optimal camp of the merit system but it is still pretty good.. The goal of cleaning up the scamcoin boards is probably going to work pretty good but at the slight casualty of users in the sub-optimal merit camp..
Atleast it has a cap of the last years activity so LoyceV's posts don't bump threads straight to the front page of the New York Times right?

Life isn't fair.. Perfection is a fairytale..

[Foxpup]

Local rule - this is addressed to theymos only. Therefore only his opinion is on topic and relevant. Nobody except theymos and our selves may post on this thread.

Then why bother starting a thread at all? Is theymos blocking your PMs?

[suchmoon]

Stop hiding up. Why not have a sensible debate and crush our central points one by one. Then we will see WE are on the wrong path no you and this board.

Your central points (as well as outer, minor, and peripheral ones) have been crushed numerous times by theymos thoroughly ignoring you. I wish we could all do the same but we're weak and addicted to drama.

[The-One-Above-All]

Poor old robovac aka the merit obsessed dirt sucking tool.  Who has achieved NOTHING or real note since being a member here. NO achievements at ALL except spewing meaningless stats obsessed garbage and supporting anything that makes it appear a credible and important member even if that ALSO supports scammers and those observably directly a financial risk to the board.


10000 posts and NOT 1 real achievement. LOL brilliant robovac. Meanwhile Lauda has come over to theymos to demonstrate how himself and robovac work as a team to keep the truly dangerous in line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIblMtZ0EYk&t=7s


Loyce and lauda explaining how it should be 250 earned merits or higher to Theymos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbuaUYMwOP8&t=19s



I mean look robovac you merit pumped dreg. Bring me here 5 of your ORIGINAL THOUGHT INSPIRING POSTS (not copy and past stats puke with very minor analysis) for analysis. Also since you are obsessed with a prior REAL LEGEND WITH MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF REAL ACHIEVEMENTS and since you like to argue with him previously. Bring here some EXAMPLES of your encounters where you were not demonstrated to be a dumb fool and spout moronic illogical junk?

Now get back to sucking up dirt and spewing out "stats" based upon a meaningless subjective metric. That is ALL you are "good for".

You even selectively quote theymos replies to a true legend that DO NOT INCLUDE his observably incorrect statements. Bring all the quotes. Also those quote demonstrate. 1 I will ignore and not tackle - then it followed some observably incorrect statements. One of which seems to have been self debunked by his own subsequent actions. 1 false accusation and refusal to then tackle permitted flow. Of course this varies depending on who you are.

In addition to that the "good" reports are a LAUGHING STOCK. BAD reports and GOOD reports are subjective and in many cases observably gamed and bogus decisions by corrupt mods.

Have a look on our "deleted posts" topic in rep and then we will compare those to some that are marked BAD from the DT abusers and merit cyclers like random spams like the one from oeioeie (or whatever that dreg calls himself)  

" who made this cunt bleed"

" shut up you used tampon"

these are now the good posts and credible and undenible rebuttals to their " central points" are off topic and irrelevent.

I know you are just low level Absolute Imbecile and pathetic robovac but there is no point in quoting FALSE accusations that collapse under scrutiny to try to prove whatever garbage you are spouting out now.

So again your misleading post is served up as garbage.

Stick to serving the "gang" members and trying to validate your "value" here by just slobbering out stats based upon meaningless metrics. If you create enough of those then you are doing the best that you are capable of.  You are an idiot I hope that you realize this clearly. If not go back review the merit cycling threads where your stupid attempts at reason were torn to bits by a real legend.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now at to eddies post ( the only semi credible attempt at a debate although he is not theymos himself so should not be posting under our local rules)


Still since this is the ONLY kind of ATTEMPT at a debate we are likely to encounter between Theymos hiding up and the merit cycling crew trying to derail. We willl tackle his points one by one.


Let's start.

1. OP have you ever seen any system work out 100% optimally in absolutely every aspect?

that is no excuse to have a system that is almost as SUB OPTIMAL as you could dream up.

Review these points we presented that are based upon a meaningless and misleading metric

1. rank
2. other peoples paid2post eligibility
3. other peoples paid2post rates
4. the volume of the entire board in that now you your voice will not be heard at all unless you have a nice amount of EARNED merits.
5. their own personal access to the highest rates of paid2post
6. The trust system eligibility and selection process (what a shock they all feel EACH OTHER are the most trustworthy even though many are PROVEN scammers and financially dangerous.
7. The perceived trust of other members and themselves.
8. Therefore other peoples ability to trade on this board.
9. Peoples (public opinions) via wanting to obtain merits and not get red trust.
10. Idiots perceived opinions since they look at merit score as some kind of validation of true value.

So the people that now have vast control of ALL of these things happen to ALSO be the same people that are listed here on the dirty turds poll.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

You start to realize the "nothing is 100% perfect argument" is kind of funny.

2. The goal of the merit system is to slow down sig spammers and account farmers

This is CORRECT and 100% ALL it was designed for. Applying NEW meanings to it like,

To then say if you have the most merits you get to control  1-10 above is PURE IDIOCY.

There is no real way to abuse merit UNLESS those with the most merit say it is being abused = PURE IDIOCY.

3.The DT system's goal is decentralization and the casualty is drama and infighting and also the disadvantage of users the merit system is sub-optimal for.. I still think it will settle out, and is settling out, but the waves are still bouncing around in the pool from the cannonball that was thrown in when it was implemented..
A subset of users got a big head start because they were already using trust lists and were some of the first to act because they are most on top of new happenings.. Maybe they have been trying to keep it a bit too exclusive to like minded users and supporters but it is continually decentralizing and diversifying to many users of many mindsets..


It is NOT decentralization. If so the designer is a total and utter imbecile. MERIT is the controlling factor of the power the members will have themselves, AND the power to select who else has access to that power. NOW due to the design there is CLEAR FINANCIAL REWARD via sig campaigns, bumps, and multiple other direct financial incentives to retaining that POWER and ensuring that POWER only goes to those that will not clearly rival their power or financial advantages. AND YOU HOPE THING WILL IMPROVE AND THIS WAS JUST A HEAD START??   this is observably FALSE.  You are claiming that human nature on this board works in reverse to EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HUMAN NATURE in history??  

You also seem to be ignoring the FACT that these people you think will suddenly start allowing "others" outside of their pals, alts and acolytes to gain some power were really lovely people to start with. Not noticing most of them are either proven to have scammed, or supported others that have scammed here.

This point is BOGUS that things will improve. It is impossible to say that will happen.

THE BEST you can HOPE will happen is that DT will break down in to FACTIONS that will not abuse each other due to MAD.  

The more you present observable instances of the failure of the merit system and the direct knock on results of the merit system. The MORE theymos sets up the board to financially reward and skew power based on MERIT.

It is clearly impossible he can not notice the direct results of this but seems now complicit to ensure the entire board (before this latest stupid move with merit = bump power the merit cancer was spreading its effect slightly more slowly) only serves to represent the opinions and financially rewarding results of the merit hoarders.

Your 3rd point here is in part TRUE but is stating the situation as it is now in very weak terms and exposing the reader to unrealistic hopes for an improvement in terms of fair treatment for all members.

Merit needs resetting, and some strict enforceable criteria set. Abusers are booted off AT ONCE. I mean look at theymos actions on this so far. HE REMOVED a merit source for openly saying I WILL REWARD GOOD POSTS THAT FIT WITH WHAT I AGREE WITH (POLITICAL POINTS) however we can NOT demonstrate those posts were net negative and actually some of those posts were EXCELLENT and their central points were never debunked.

Then THEYMOS gives merit source to people who SLATHER merits on politically contrived net negative and at times rule breaking garbage like fox poop.

The entire system is bogus and THEYMOS is now ADDING MORE additional financial rewards for an observably broken and misleading metric.

The most worrying thing is the free speech. It is undeniable that Theymos is ever more making the carrot more tasty and appealing (like crack now)  although has apparently attempted to lessen the blatant abuse of the stick (trust) to forcing people to repeat and regurgitate the " VIEWS" of the system controllers.  

I mean the flagging system is a GOOD IDEA but again VERY WEAK implementation so that you still get flagrant abuse of the old trust system which is left there for the system controllers and their scampaign manager friends to game for their own closed selection process.

The entire attempt at decentralizing control has FAILED.

It was better when theymos chose some DT members so he was directly accountable for enlisting scammers and trust abusers.

We have given him MANY great suggestions to curb the control by a tiny sub set of scammers and their supporters and each time he refuses.

Unless he can debate openly regarding the potential pros and cons of his decisions then he must be viewed as unsuitable to concoct these ludicrous systems that place scammers in the most lucrative and powerful positions of the board where they are accountable only to themselves in any meaningful way.

Whether it is deliberate or not this building upon this "merit" garbage is a FAIL in numerous ways.  

This is NOT the governance of someone suitable for satoshis principles.  Let's bring in some one sensible who has some understanding of human nature and can perhaps create something more credible that REALLY decentralizes power and does not just hand it immediately to the most greedy and dangerous members.

Let theymos be the warden but ffs let's get some developer who can create some systems that are not immediately gamed and manipulated by a few scammers and their pals. who then use their new given powers to take all the best rev streams and silence all those that dare to notice.

Is it impossible on a anonymous forum? perhaps it is so let's forget the FAKE DECENTRALIZATION and bring on some top down control that is FULLY ACCOUNTABLE.


So yes there was some value to your post eddie, however under scrutiny it falls very short of painting a true representation of what we have here right now and the outlook for this system in the future.

Next please.


@suchmoon you can not crush central points by ignoring them. Sorry try again. Bring your best arguments. We always enjoy humiliating you in public.

Theymos has only replied to us and our friends in MOSTLY 1 liner, poorly researched, observably untrue accusations and statements. Mixed with some subjective opinions.

We want a REAL DEBATE.

Unlike you suchmoon we do not kiss theymos ass then stab him in the back as soon as he take some small action against your scamming, trust abusing pals.

We tell theymos the TRUTH.

Merit is dog shit. You must have rocks in your head building control systems upon this gamed and manipulated garbage. You should be taking some REAL action against scammers infesting your trust system, you should not be giving merit source to scammers and shit posters, your mods are corrupt and will not dare debate their actions, the financial incentives you are providing for gaming your systems are foolish,

Stop weighting merit as if it is MERIT and start cleaning house of scammers and their supporters.


Suchmoon only calls theymos out as a sneaky heavy handed leader FOR ASKING SCAMMERS GET REMOVED.

Notice the difference??? theymos probably does not because he thinks suchmoon is an excellent member LOL


Sorry no debunking of the central points as yet. Keep them coming though. More screaming trolling for merits is appreciated for bumps.

Or

RUN OFF AND HIDE weasels.

[eddie13]

-snip-

A lot of these "scammers", or whatever you call them, in DT and sources are not as bad as you think they are.. Sure they have their imperfections but you have an inflated view of their negativity due to your specific personal dealings with them..

The problem is that you (mostly) are all hotheads, condescending, and egotistical, but their are 20 of them and one of you.. Including you with your "real legend" shit and you flying off the handle, and them calling you a cunt, giving no respect to what you had to say, and disregarding you as a loon, but your flying off the handle did get increasingly looney along with their disrespect of you, to the point where we are today..

Sure they treated you poorly but you also handled it poorly by flying off the handle about it and went straight to war against them all before you got the chance to build any semblance of mutual respect with them.
I wish things didn't turn out this way and feel sorry for you in your situation but it's like the concept of deescalation has never even crossed you mind right from the start when this battle started about you being a Legend but having no merits..

Yes their are a lot of Legendarys with no merits because they are shit spammers and their are also Legendarys with no merits because the merit system sucks or is "sub-optimal" in areas of the forum, like the altcoins board where you came from, especially back then when your war started..

You shouldn't have been so pissed about not having merits and just understood that the merit system just sucked for you. They shouldn't have been so dismissive of you and had some understanding that the merit system sucked for you. You shouldn't have been so quick to escalate and go to war. Everyone should have been less offensive. They shouldn't have tried digging to ban you. You should have kept your cool better and maybe just stepped away to prove them wrong with your actions rather than arguments.. They shouldn't have called you names.. You shouldn't have called them names..
Now you are at total war..

You have some supportable points and grievances but you package it in an unsupportable way.. I'd bet that theymos even feels for some of your points but he ain't got time for the rest of the package it comes in and we just can't support your position that they are all absolute scammers..

Heck yes some of them have way too many merits, and power that comes with merits, but for the most part that wasn't intentional, it's just the way the cards landed, and were just trying to play the game the best we can with the cards we were dealt..
Yeah you got dealt a shit hand but life isn't fair..

I got dealt a shit hand too, being 1 post for an activity period away from having my 1000 base merits, and I thought it really sucked at first, but now I think it's kinda cool because I'll have the opportunity to atleast earn 1 rank, it wasn't just handed to me, it gives me a bit of incentive and something to look forward to, but it's not like it matters anyway because their hasn't been a signature campaign deal that works for me in a long time anyway and I'm not petty/shallow about wanting to be a legendary, I'm no where near "legendary" in reality..


What are you going to do now? What is the next step from here?
Their really aren't many ways left that you can reword your points and arguments you have posted hundreds of times. We have all read them and know what you have to say including theymos.. You aren't really helping yourself with your ranting extremely long posts about the same thing over and over again. You aren't helping yourself by calling them "scammers" and all sorts of names and completely burning every bridge to nothing but dust. (I know they call you names but be the bigger man and don't return the jab, namecalling makes everyone look foolish imo)

I'd hate to see you just keep this up until you finally ragequit.. I don't want to see you gone because I think you can be productive. You have a lot of valuable oldschool crypto experience and know things from the past that not many do. Far more than me..


Can you maybe take a break from this war for a bit? Maybe go back to the altcoins board for a month or 2, think, and come up with a plan to end this? Maybe some sort of south/north korea ceasefire for now while you come up with a plan?

Give in just a bit and think about what you would accept as far as a mutual disagreement. What would be acceptable to you to establish atleast a wee bit of mutual respect.
Calm down, come back and put your cards on the table, and work towards some sort of peace agreement?
Maybe I can even help you talk to them..

If you can pull it off I'll give you a bunch of stupid merits..

[cabalism13]

...

You deserved +35 for this. (Currently out, so I hope some one will)
Very well said.


P.S. This was the first time I read a Long context of somebody.

[mprep]

In regards to the local rule, I'm going to quote something I've posted previously that is surprisingly perfect for this topic:

The fact that you are making a thread directed to a single member (which is what PMs are for) in a board that disallows self-moderated threads, I'm gonna go with "local rules do not apply" here. If you want theymos to reply, message him directly. If he doesn't reply, tough luck but I guess he wasn't interested in responding.

[suchmoon]

Give in just a bit and think about what you would accept as far as a mutual disagreement. What would be acceptable to you to establish atleast a wee bit of mutual respect.
Calm down, come back and put your cards on the table, and work towards some sort of peace agreement?
Maybe I can even help you talk to them..

My offer is still on the table: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136712.msg50822867#msg50822867

I don't even care about respect towards me as long as cryptohunter can respect the forum as a whole and stop spamming this mindless rage all over the place. One thread to vent it all sounds like a fair deal and I'd do my best to engage him and encourage others to do so in such a dedicated thread.

[hilariousetc]

-snip-

A lot of these "scammers", or whatever you call them, in DT and sources are not as bad as you think they are.. Sure they have their imperfections but you have an inflated view of their negativity due to your specific personal dealings with them..

Sane person:

homophobia: bad
racism: equally as bad

Insane person:

homophobia + violence: bad
'racist' joke account + signature campaign: worst crime on the forum.

In regards to the local rule, I'm going to quote something I've posted previously that is surprisingly perfect for this topic:

The fact that you are making a thread directed to a single member (which is what PMs are for) in a board that disallows self-moderated threads, I'm gonna go with "local rules do not apply" here. If you want theymos to reply, message him directly. If he doesn't reply, tough luck but I guess he wasn't interested in responding.

Exactly, but that would defeat the entire purpose of him making these threads in the first place. He does them for attention, so if theymos ignores his PM, which he likely will, then he's just screaming into the void.  

[tranthidung]

Then why bother starting a thread at all? Is theymos blocking your PMs?

This is not the first thread with local rule for only theymos. I guess admin likely blocked OP's PM for months.
By the way, the thread looks like a merit-laundering place for merit sources (just kidding).  

Local rules - only the most senior admin may comment on this thread. 

Only Cobra, Cyrus and Theymos may reply. Satoshi can chime in, if he feels strongly about the situation, which I expect he would.

[The-One-Above-All]

-snip-

some sensible points, many incorrect statements

Congratulations on hitting legendary.
We are pleased you gained a nice bunch of merits. The post is more deserving than most here. However, we must still demonstrate vast swathes of it are incorrect or very misleading. This is not personal.

It is good to actually meet a member that is not afraid to debate in public. Even if we believe you are not presenting a picture that is really representative of the reality here. However that is what debates are for. So we look forward to it's continuation. So far it has served you well.

We believe you are being honest. However please review all the information and verify it for yourself. Then query any points you disagree with.


1.A lot of these "scammers", or whatever you call them, in DT and sources are not as bad as you think they are.. Sure they have their imperfections but you have an inflated view of their negativity due to your specific personal dealings with them

We would need specific examples of those we refer to correctly as scammers. We say correctly since they have observable instances of scamming in their histories. Others have other financially motivated wrong doing or clearly support those that do. Many DT members (suchmoon for sure) claim that if you are supporting even a possible scam then you can be viewed as a scammer. In most of DT's cases they are supporting known and documented scammers or those willing to facilitate scamming for a price.

Bring your examples of where we are being over harsh. I think you will find calling scammers " scammers" or scammer supporters " scam supporters" will be acceptable practice from and objective standpoint. Some have MULTIPLE instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their pasts.


2. Flying off the handle and going looney

If you examine carefully the time line of CH. The "looney" or getting annoyed is fully warranted if you examine the depth and severity of the injustice. Just a quick recap.

1. lauda lying and scamming accusing CH of being a liar and there was no premine/instamine because lauda was on the launch and could say that for sure. (and held bags of that specific coin.)
2. Lauda's lies debunked by CH and others who supported CH's claims.
3. CH pushes with others for devs to offer a $ 2 000 000 000 compensation offer for the entire board, that lauda sought to prevent.
4. Years later CH catches lauda being very negative about that premined project claiming it is (centralized - go figure when they premine all the minting), lauda says " yeah sorry I was new and foolish. CH graciously says.. okay never too late to come to the light.
5. Lauda appears years later accusing CH of being liar on a separate issue. CH challenges him to present the lies. Lauda refuses but continues to make false allegations.
6. CH says if you make those claims again without presenting evidence he will encourage others to review laudas post history for themselves.
7. Lauda gives a scam tag to CH for saying that.
8. CH presents observable events from laudas history. Tman (also an auction scammer and implicated working with lauda on an extortion plot) gives CH another red tag.
9. CH says to tman you can not give red tags for presenting facts. Tman says " I can, I will and I just have".
10. CH says remove the red tag or else I will make sure everyone knows the truth about this trust abuse.
11. Yogg (also involved with lauda and tman previously) gives CH a red tag. Claiming that if " you say you will inform others of why you got the trust abuse if it is not removed that means you need a scam tag.
12. CH presents this to several DT members. He gets replies like. " I am not interested in reviewing this"  " I don't want to get involved" " I am not interested in the truth" " It is a good thing when innocent people get red trust because it makes everyone more wary"
13. Theymos says - your posts are annoying long winded low value garbage.  Lauda has done some good things before. I don't accept your explanation. NO debate.
14. People use Theymos reply as validation that CH is the problem not the systems of control and the fact DT will not act against each other and collude.
15. Ch presents a brilliant thread that is never debunked detailing the undeniable flaws of the sytems of control and their dire implications and makes some good suggestions with the key one to keep merit and trust as separated as possible. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
16. Theymos merits the faux rebuttal that CH debunked and then goes and binds merit and trust together essentially making "merit into trust"
17. Theymos then makes a deal with OG and lauda to remove Laudas scam tags so that he can be seen as one of the most trustworthy people on the board.
18. Theymos says ..."ch you may have had a point about your trust abuse but because for some UNKNOWN reason completely unfathomable after compounded abuse of your account by the same scammers and his friends that tried to scam the board out of a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer over months, my own reluctance to help (but I will help the scammer get his red trust removed) DT's all colluding and telling you it is good innocent members get red, and the truth is not of interest.  Then just for that you get all angry and agressive. The only explanation could be you are clearly insane.
19. After suchmoon tries to spin that fighting for a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation claim and winning it against her scammer pal is net negative because ch didn't a few times reference the post which provided CH with the first clear analysis and details of how the premine went down. Although many times of the 10's of times it was quoted he did that winning a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer against her scammer pal means CH should be perm banned.
20. Then more weaponizing of gamed metrics like deleted post count. Theymos says CH you will be banned soon because you have a lot of deleted posts.
21 What happens next? someone goes and reports every single short post 2 words or whatever in CH entire history LOL
22. Voted the biggest TROLL on this board. According to the board rules. Trolling is the continued posting of clearly debunked and false information. The people voting can not present 1 instance where this took place? strange isn't it.



So eddie you say CH is a hot head? unreasonable and seemingly gets angry above and beyond normal range for these small injustices at the hands of previously defeated scammers and their colluding supporters? now entrenching themselves deeply in power and ensure they are paid at the highest rates due to Theymos brilliant designs?

We CH/ us and other truth presenters are too negative you say? these people are just the types you want in positions of trust you say? We just need to get to know them a little more and make friends?

3.You shouldn't have been so pissed about not having merits and just understood that the merit system just sucked for you

Merit was never the original reason for our arrival on meta board. It is also untrue that in its current form we desire merit since we want the entire system deleted or confined to its original purpose that had no conceivable use for us.

This is kind of a strange statement. It is clear merit sucks for the myriad of reasons we have demonstrated it sucks for. This has implications for the entire board.

We don't give one shit about this merit dirt if it was left to hold out bots ONLY as it was designed. However when it  empowers, sanctions, and financially REWARDS abuse like the above ...none of which is accountable to any member except themselves. Then Yes we are more interested in seeing it adapted so this does not happen to ANY member. Our only point is that it is the prime tool for creating a 2 tier system, which closely represents the central banking system and is nothing like the principles satoshi envisioned.
The implications for free speech on equal terms just got a whole lot clearer with the new merit = volume of your voice tweak.

Please review our post history and this thread (which was pre merit=trust) to understand merit is grossly net negative.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
Since then things have gotten an whole lot more dark in many key areas that satoshi would have fought to protect. It is simply a case of understanding the implications of these control systems.

4. What are you going to do now? What is the next step from here?
Their really aren't many ways left that you can reword your points and arguments you have posted hundreds of times. We have all read them and know what you have to say including theymos.. You aren't really helping yourself with your ranting extremely long posts about the same thing over and over again. You aren't helping yourself by calling them "scammers" and all sorts of names and completely burning every bridge to nothing but dust. (I know they call you names but be the bigger man and don't return the jab, namecalling makes everyone look foolish imo)

There is no requirement to reword the truth. When the truth is on topic and relevant then the truth shall be presented. It shall not be repackaged.

Scammers will be called scammers. There is no need to mislead people regarding their potential and already observed behaviors.  Name calling is fine if the names can be sensibly tied to the observable behaviors of the person. So calling someone a filthy scamming scum bag is reasonable and then to tie the relevance of this and their prior actions to the opening post is useful to the reader. We have no issue with names in our direction if the supporting argument is there to justify it.

So for instance.

" who made this cunt bleed"  is just silly and derailing low value garbage. That was marked BAD when we reported it.

rather

" You are a cunt, I hate you. You continuously bring up my scamming past to demonstrate that I have double standards for being negative about other members for lesser crimes, I would like to make your nose bleed you fucking stalking bitch"

There you see we would not object. Although the scammers frustration has caused them to claim they would like make our nose bleed. We would say to ourselves. He has explained and validated his outburts and name calling. The reader can now see that the scammer is trying to pull double standards and punish another member for things he himself has done. We will keep this in mind when forming our own conclusions in the full context of this situation.

There is a correct term that describes the persons behaviors that is just called describing correctly. There is swearing and attributing negative terms to a person and justifying your reasons with corroborating evidence in the context of the OP. That is fine too. Just screaming accusations like " trolling don't feed them" or " who made this cunt bleed" " or shut up you used tampon" " who made this cunts butt sore"  these kind of things are very low value and need to be validated and credible and also relate to the OP directly.


5.Give in just a bit and think about what you would accept as far as a mutual disagreement. What would be acceptable to you to establish atleast a wee bit of mutual respect.
Calm down, come back and put your cards on the table, and work towards some sort of peace agreement?

This would not be possible really without some serious adjustments. However to out line them as a kind of rough idea.

1. ALL members with ANY clear financially motivated wrong doing removed from positions of trust at ANY time now or the future.
2. Those supporting or not excluding members that match that description ALSO REMOVED.
2. All trust abuse removed from our account and any other person clearly being abused who has ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories.

That would certainly help put us towards much much less frequent truth presentation regarding matters of TRUST, scamming, etc. That side of things would be of little interest after that point.

We would also like help develop a  sensible and logical set of criteria that helps all members measure the objective value of a post (and many other measures to turn merit into something that resembles merit) and a set of sensible and logical criteria, examples etc of permitted flow.  This need not be negative and would only be viewed as such by those that want to maintain the status quo and abuse of the merit system. Those that want FAIR and TRANSPARENT allocation of merit will be more than happy to assist a system that pushes for that.


Thanks for this opportunity to have a sensible, cordial and civil debate.

@ hilarious you post is OBSERVABLY incorrect garbage and totally misleading to what we have said. Please review it, review our posts and amend else we will need to crush your claims as deliberately misleading and false rubbish.

@trannydung

Great dung post.


@mprep

as previously explained. PM's are not suitable for a transparent debate on issues that have implications for the entire board. Also even posting PM's is frowned on so that would not be at all useful in terms of relaying theymos words to the forum at any stage.

@the rest

not time for the bottom of the barrel right now.

[rhomelmabini]

12

Theymos signature is attached in there, you can verify that. Mata ne!

[cabalism13]

...

You forgot something...

Can you maybe take a break from this war for a bit? Maybe go back to the altcoins board for a month or 2, think, and come up with a plan to end this?

This will be the best for you... And also take this offer already, then everybody who treated you bad might also have a change of pace. Admin might also want to engage with it, possibility aren't still zero, I suppose?

My offer is still on the table: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136712.msg50822867#msg50822867

I might want to believe in eddie13 here,...

I'd hate to see you just keep this up until you finally ragequit.. I don't want to see you gone because I think you can be productive. You have a lot of valuable oldschool crypto experience and know things from the past that not many do. Far more than me..

If you can pull it off I'll give you a bunch of stupid merits..

Count me in on this, only if you'll accept what eddie13's suggestion.

[The-One-Above-All]

As much as we would (not) love a big bag of subjective worthless magic points we are not going anywhere until the new merit = volume button is switched on in meta. Then new strategies will need be formed.

In a real merits system it is not subjectively given. It is objectively earned. When that happens we shall have more merits than we could deal with.

I know regular truth injections to the back slapping echo chambers (meta threads) are inconvenient and annoying. Sadly for historical purposes they should be there as testament to the warnings that were issued early on, regarding this merit cancer/faux decentralization nonsense.

Why not just debunk the points we are making and then they can REALLY be termed as trolling if repeated then for REALLY trolling repeatedly.

Still the central points remain solid with no real attempt at debunking them. More if we are all honest a case of ... well okay they may be true, but perhaps you are exaggerating them. NO they are true, there is no exaggeration at all.

If other members and mods want to side with scammers and trust abusers to ensure their chipmixer btc dust payments, then that will be there in history for all to read about.
It is there in black and white and undeniable as are most of our central points, hence why NONE of them have been debunked. You can not debunk a observable instance. Well perhaps one vixen could......in their mind anyway.

[Foxpup]

You can not debunk a observable instance. Well perhaps one vixen could......in their mind anyway.

Oh, all right, if you insist...

You are increasingly centralizing power to those handful of people that have undeniable and independently verifiable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.  This again is quite undeniable.

False. DT was previously decided by theymos unilaterally. The new system, however much you dislike it, is decentralised by comparison.

You are allowing and sanctioning those same bunch of scammers and their supporters to punish whistleblowers. You are empowering these scammers to do so.

Okay, here you're onto something. I don't know why TECSHARE hasn't yet been blacklisted from DT any more than you do. My best guess is that theymos is waiting to see if the system will resolve itself in a decentralised way.

No point saying no because your posts are boring, or no because it's bullshit or no because you must be now banned, or sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.

Penmanship counts. You'd do well to heed Strunk & White's advice to omit needless words (or just omit words).

[The-One-Above-All]

You can not debunk a observable instance. Well perhaps one vixen could......in their mind anyway.

Oh, all right, if you insist...

You are increasingly centralizing power to those handful of people that have undeniable and independently verifiable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.  This again is quite undeniable.

False. DT was previously decided by theymos unilaterally. The new system, however much you dislike it, is decentralised by comparison.

You are allowing and sanctioning those same bunch of scammers and their supporters to punish whistleblowers. You are empowering these scammers to do so.

Okay, here you're onto something. I don't know why TECSHARE hasn't yet been blacklisted from DT any more than you do. My best guess is that theymos is waiting to see if the system will resolve itself in a decentralised way.

No point saying no because your posts are boring, or no because it's bullshit or no because you must be now banned, or sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.

Penmanship counts. You'd do well to heed Strunk & White's advice to omit needless words (or just omit words).

Please read more carefully vixen. Start with just reading this entire thread.

CENTRALIZING POWER. Power does not reside with DT. DT is merely a tumor that is a result of the true CANCER merit.

Merit directly controls members in the ways 1-10 we have specified.

Besides which even taking into consideration DT alone. We and any other member would certain benefit far more greatly from top down controlled fair and transparent rules. That are applied equally to all members. rather than this faux decentralized (to a group that collude as one on many important and dangerous issues)  that have no accountability except to themselves in many cases.    


MORE INTERESTINGLY

You claim Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT do you vixen? this is a view we do not share nor understand at this stage.

Could you explain your reasoning on this in the full context of your reasoning that those with objectively verifiable observable instances of financial wrong doing and in some cases outright undeniable scamming and self confessed willing to facilitate scammers for a price.

We are looking forward to you not running away and staying here to thrash this out. We want to give you every opportunity to present your reasoning and we will work with you to reach the objective and optimal decision.

So lets compare the reasons you want techshare, but not lauda, tman, nutildah  blacklisted. Rather you want lauda tman and nutildah included into a trust system?

This is going to be interesting.. or will we witness a high velocity vile vixen vanishing act?

To summon the agent one it seems need only mention 'vixen' and it appears to assist as best it can.

[eddie13]

Congratulations on hitting legendary The Lottery.

Thanks, I wasn't expecting anything like that and am almost embarrassed..


I have been contemplating my reply for a while but this part on the end seems the most troublesome..

1. ALL members with ANY clear financially motivated wrong doing removed from positions of trust at ANY time now or the future.
2. Those supporting or not excluding members that match that description ALSO REMOVED.

Well, some minor, and maybe some not so minor things done in the past by some members have been forgiven by the general community and I do agree with some of these instances of forgiveness.. So you are not just going to get everyone out that has ever done anything wrong in their past ever.. It's just not going to happen..
You don't have to like all of them but you will need to get onboard with a little forgiveness especially if you expect any to be returned to you..
Some can probably be removed for some things, but not all of them for every little thing..

I would likely be more concerned about current and future poor behavior rather than past behavior..
Watch for current and new things.. The past is mostly settled already wither you agree with what the outcome was or not..

Lauda..

For all I know you are right about the DRK instamine situation..
Lauda probably just gave you a red tag for the best excuse to red tag you that lauda could think up.. I don't really agree with it.. Me and lauda don't agree often..

As for theymos's part of it, he doesn't always make the 100% best actions/decisions but he did eventually blacklist lauda from DT1 right?

I don't like people digging histories to get others banned..

I don't think you are a "troll" by my definition of a troll.. I doubt you are doing this just to amuse yourself..

Maybe "hot head" isn't the best word but yeah you get angry..
The problem is posting the same set of information, however correct or not, over and over again..
Maybe you should start a reputation thread to collect all of your points about every "scammer" user into the OP in sections of user or system and why you disagree with it, and then link it to your signature, so you can just say "see section "Merit" at the link in my signature" or "see section "Suchmoon" at the link in my signature", so you don't have to say it over every time..

Merit was never the original reason for our arrival on meta board.

I may very well be wrong but the first time I saw you here in a confrontation with "them" in meta was a thread about how all the Legendaries without any earned merit were all spammers and you were upset at being grouped in with the spammers because you didn't have any merit either.. <Escalation ensued..

I didn't really like the high merit threshold for DT votes either because of the way merit is so "top 1% ish", poor equality of distribution, and that I would also like to see lots and lots of votes for DT and a very large distributed DT network..
I would also like to see more distributed smerit distribution, like a small monthly airdrop to just about everyone, for better decentralization and less power concentration.

It's not perfect but not the worst that could have possibly happened, and who knows, my ideas could make everything worse, I'm no expert..

Just screaming accusations like " trolling don't feed them" or " who made this cunt bleed" " or shut up you used tampon" " who made this cunts butt sore"  these kind of things are very low value

I agree.. That just escalates..


Maybe the point is not to post your same old points continually..
Post new points you come up with.. Post new ideas you think of like suggestions for the forums various systems.. Post new things you notice and would like to point out to all of us. Post some fresh material and be constructive with it.. Comment your thoughts on things and have new conversations..
If you feel the need to explain something that you have already explained 50 times then maybe you need to come up with a way to reference it and not type it every time so you can be a little more succinct..

I'm not the greatest at being succinct all the time either though but I try not to say the same thing 5 different ways..

[The-One-Above-All]

some reasonable points.

No need for embarrassment it is possible that you are the only person that will dare attempt a real debate with us. That is more worthy of merit than most posts that have been slathered up in merit.

It is good that we are drilling down to the crux of the matter and the real items of contention that we should thrash out.


1/ Well, some minor, and maybe some not so minor things done in the past by some members have been forgiven by the general community and I do agree with some of these instances of forgiveness.. So you are not just going to get everyone out that has ever done anything wrong in their past ever.. It's just not going to happen..
You don't have to like all of them but you will need to get onboard with a little forgiveness especially if you expect any to be returned to you..
Some can probably be removed for some things, but not all of them for every little thing..

I would likely be more concerned about current and future poor behavior rather than past behavior..
Watch for current and new things.. The past is mostly settled already wither you agree with what the outcome was or not..

It is EXACTLY the transparent and fair definition of minor or major / not really financially dangerous / crosses the threshold that meets the SCAMMING or ATTEMPTING to scam in a directly financial sense that needs to be defined. The current double standards are quite terrible.

So for instance - telling lies to deliberately mislead investors into a monstrously premined and centralized scheme because you hold bags of it is to me a serious matter. It is scamming investors into believing the distribution is wide and therefore much less high risk that a tiny few people who can manipulate and dump at any time. This is a VERY SERIOUS instance of scamming/ deception for direct personal financial gain. It could have cost the board $ 2 000 000 000. That taken on its own is bad. When you start to notice this person is also implicated in an extortion attempt, shady escrow, and then abusing members trust who present links to those instances. Then we notice his VERY close supporters are escrow scammers, implicated in the same extortion and then abusing by their own admission members for presenting those instances again.

Then we can safely say that if these types of people do NOT meet the threshold of HIGH RISK FINANCIALLY to this board. You can forget about ANY person reaching that threshold.

If this happened in the past or it happened yesterday the fact that they have not been punished and no other DT members consider them worthy of punishment demonstrates clearly these DT members are NOT fit for their positions.

That is undeniable. These are the BITCOINTALK JUDGES.  You do not put people that have proven they will scam or will facilitate scamming in a trust position EVER. Time and forgiveness does NOT come into this.

There are several reasons for this.

1. Their punishment of other members for lesser crimes will never seem fair and therefore never be tolerated.
2. You have no good reason to TRY and trust people that have scammed when you only need 30 people from 100s' of 1000's of members. It is insulting to the rest of the members.
3. You can not say for sure people that were once willing to scam and have crossed that threshold. Some several times ... will not choose to cross it again.

We must at some point discuss specifics which is the point at which we are assuming you will not be willing to continue because it makes you are target.

Perhaps even more dangerous than these types who don't even recognize they have done anything wrong themselves (although clear scammers and deceivers for financial reward) is a person who is for MONTHS running around the forum screaming that ANYONE selling their account is FACILITATING SCAMS and they claim this is EVIL behavior. That then decides they WILL FACILITATE SCAMMERS for payment and act in an EVIL manner. I mean if you are willing to become what you consider is EVIL for money then it would seem there is nothing they will not do for the correct amount of btc dust.


You see "minor" and being "forgiven" by a "tiny tiny tiny " subset of pals on this forum. Is not like the entire forum saying we "forgive you, you should be on our trust system, you should be paid at the highest rates for posting" I mean you could post a poll on all sections asking if these actions are "forgiven" and if they should NOT be punished and be allowed on DT whilst others perhaps say  promoting an ALT that some DT members consider "MAY" turn into a scam need to be punished with red trust.

Be careful not to conflate forgiveness from their DT pals and some on meta board with forgiveness and willingness to accept double standards from the entire board.

We did say CLEAR instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Not something semi minor like for instance sneaky racist trolling under a sock puppet for the max greedy rates he can get on his 2nd secret account before getting caught. Although demonstrates greedy, sneaky and double standards (for lecturing others on paid shitposting) is not essentially meeting the threshold of CLEAR financial danger to others. Perhaps though if this was combined with his own stated willingness to support a possible escrow scammer out of loyalty, who is also a proven scammer, supporting an auction scammer, supporting a scam facilitator etc etc ...this would start to push up toward the threshold and possibly beyond.

We need to make sure MINOR and MAJOR are the same for all members in a sensible manner.

I mean really it is insulting to the entire board that we even feel the need for ANYONE with ANY kind of financially motivated wrong doing on the trust system when we have apparently millions of members and only need 20-30 trustworthy people that are free of that type of wrong doing.

This would need be thrashed out person by person on DT.

Is knowingly supporting a proven scammer a bad thing? We think it obviously is.

2. As for theymos's part of it, he doesn't always make the 100% best actions/decisions but he did eventually blacklist lauda from DT1 right?

This is interesting really. Because after months of being presented with observable instances of lauda trust abusing punishing whistle blowers, and his prior scamming and shady shit, theymos says lauda has acted sometimes in a "sub optimal" manner but then has done some good things LOL, he does not accept the observable instances on many matters and CH is boring and acting insane,  and works out with OG vod etc that lauda has his red trust removed. I mean let us not forget lauda, tman etc were OUT of DT before theymos NEW design where they all shot back in. Let's not forget theymos made tman a merit source etc.  However sure once lauda just could not stop abusing the trust of "special members" that theymos does take some care about then he was "black listed"

But what really happened? nothing? laudas red trust abuse will remain and apparently is MORE entrenched in DT than ever before. Lauda still has a green trust sheet, lauda is still being paid at the highest rates? lauda seems fine??

theymos has time to code out a new merit = volume button for all members but can't work out that blacklisting him from DT1 did nothing so blacklisting needs to be DT all levels ? apparently he is more entrenched in DT now than ever before. Then theymos grandfathered in to the trust system the very trust abuse that brought about need of the new flagging system. Which can be abused but only to a lemons level. Still that is enough to mitigate any new strengths of the new flagging system with regard to abusing for financial reward.

theymos may have good intentions but if his systems are making things 10x worse then that makes it just as bad for the NON gang members. He does not listen nor debate. Just tried experiments on a live board? imagine devs just trying out new "ideas"  on a live project. That's what test nets are for. Whoops whats that you all lost your coins?


3.The problem is posting the same set of information, however correct or not, over and over again..

That is the very best way to get your point across. The point is in 2 parts.

1. we will not be rage quitting. It will never stop.
2. The truth where is it on topic and relevant must be heard and repeated until people accept there is no room for double standards.

We DO think you have a good point ... that we can quote or reference post where we have presented the same truths before. That would save us time and work and allow us to post on more threads.

4.I may very well be wrong but the first time I saw you here in a confrontation with "them" in meta was a thread about how all the Legendaries without any earned merit were all spammers and you were upset at being grouped in with the spammers because you didn't have any merit either.

The first contact between DT and Cryptohunter was regarding the unfair bullying of another member by DT members. Before that CH had no interest in merit, DT or even really took any real note of that kind of thing. It was after after this contact when he noticed 2 prior scam supporters were on this DT that can give weird little red marks that he started to look into this which then lead to a thread about merits.

You are possibly talking about a thread where Suchmoon made some strange and outrageous statements and refused to go back on them.


1. That ALL pre merit legends are spammers.

2. That it was WRONG and IDIOTIC to suggest that some of the 99.87 % of the board were capable of making posts as good as some of the posts made by the 0.13% of the board (which were the top 100 or 200 merit holders)

I don't recall exactly the figures but something like that.

Where she was claiming merit was such a brilliant and reliable metric when it suited her agenda... later to debunk all of that by openly stating "good poster" and " bad poster" are MEANINGLESS TERMS without definition and criteria to measure against. This is obviously correct and undeniable. Making her look INSANE or untrustworthy or very very confused.

5.I didn't really like the high merit threshold for DT votes either because of the way merit is so "top 1% ish", poor equality of distribution, and that I would also like to see lots and lots of votes for DT and a very large distributed DT network..
I would also like to see more distributed smerit distribution, like a small monthly airdrop to just about everyone, for better decentralization and less power concentration.

It's not perfect but not the worst that could have possibly happened, and who knows, my ideas could make everything worse, I'm no expert..


There is value here in what you have said. However it is the WORST thing that could have happened in that context. It bound merit to trust. So now you have 2 control systems bound together as 1. Far easier to collude and game control of both now.

That is one solution perhaps airdropped only to heros and legends since there will be enough to lose (their account)(if there is clear merit abuse to prevent them attempting it), however we far prefer to push for merit to be be attributed only to those that output posts with objective value in terms of pushing for the optimal outcome or solution to each thread. Another issue  with merit currently is someone can post something that "seems" very convincing and valuable. ONLY when it gets debunked fully at a later stage is it revealed to be misleading nonsense before that happens it gets a ton of merits. The problem seems that there is obviously a lot of back slapping and gaming and politically motivated meriting BUT ALSO there is a lot of what we consider Lemming meriting (not lemon that is the political issue) people see someone they know or like has given merits and then they think hey yeah we will give some merits too. Perhaps the merits you give should be invisible to others for 48hr or perhaps longer to allow cooling off. If people read a post and believe it deserves merit they should do so without needing confirmation from their pals.

Perhaps a limit on the merits you can give another person for 6 months say 10 merits so if you see someone with a huge merit score you don't find out it all came from the same 10-15 people and that they are all the top fans and recipients of each others merits. That 100's of people total unconnected have given merits because those posts matched the criteria of a valuable post.

Maybe merits should be merit 1 or no merit 0. I mean it is either a valuable effort or does not meet the threshold of being valuable. Perhaps 1-3 max range. With a 3 being an original and brilliant new insight that nobody has previously mentioned on that thread. Not some reworded agreement/disagreement already voiced 20x on the thread from a political POV.

I mean just ANY criteria a post should match to get merit could be useful, not just if you think it is a good post. How is that any kind of guideline. May as well say " hey if you get loads of these points you get to control the board including rev streams, who wants to give the points out oh you 20 always hanging out here in meta wanting to control things and have been willing to scam people for money in the past.., okay here you go, now only give them to others you think make good posts" bye kids be good. ahaha

6.I agree.. That just escalates..

This part is incorrect in a way. It does not escalate. Not that escalating is wrong in all cases. Those one liner meaningless off topic and derailing  do not escalate. They derail. You can't read a post presenting the truth corroborated with observable instances, not even attempt to debunk them but just scream " who made this cunt bleed" or " you are a used tampon" and say that is escalating really. That is fully on thread hijacking and derailing. There is no attempt to making a counter argument. You can call people names but you need to tackle their central points.

A debate in some forms is a battle of opinions that people need to validate and corroborate with independently verifiable evidence. This may get heated in that people may present their views in a less and less polite manner as they become more frustrated the other party can not see they are correct even given the evidence or that they are angry they are getting pushed back with this evidence and they start to realize they were WRONG.  Eventually in most cases especially those based directly on observable instances historically recorded on this forum there can only be ONE correct or ONE dominant side to a debate. Or it will become a grey area where it is so near the threshold of supporting one side over the other that the clarity is only there for those that have the capacity to interpret the information 100% accurately and measure its weight correctly. In very complex matters or where huge amounts of variables must be considered then there is perhaps only "opinions" for those with anything other than the highest capacity and specific training. In some areas there can only be educated speculations.

If a pupil says to the teacher. Can you explain why you allow lauda and his friends to steal our lunch money and try to beat us up if we dare to report it. Then lauda and his friends scream fuck off you used tampon, don't feed the troll, who made this cunt bleed. This is not escalation this is a deliberate attempt to prevent people asking legitimate questions and finding out the reasons why this abuse is allowed to continue.

Then if the pupil gets told by the teacher , shut up you boring bastard, and he makes them prefects and hands them some weapons , and the pupil asks again teacher how come you are giving these mother fucking scum bags the means to abuse in with greater effect can you explain your reasons... then lauda and his pals scream " he is the biggest troll here" " ban him"  " should be expelled from this school" "  then again this is not escalation this is compounding their earlier abuse and the teacher is making judgement errors.

When 2 sets of ideas conflict and tension escalates it is okay if the war of words each time brings some new argument and counter argument corroborated by observable events or solid evidence. When one side has reached the point of the argument where they have support enough to debunk the opposing points and the other side has NO WAY to push them back or debunk their dominating points. There there is also no need for the clearly dominant or winning side to supply A NEW argument at all. They have WON the debate until new information is presented that can debunk their points. There is no point in the losing side to escalate tension after that point. It is futile and changes nothing in terms of the debate and brings ZERO VALUE. The optimal solution or outcome at that point in time is reached.

Passion and drive are good things if people all stick to the same sensible rules.

Our central points are never trolling. How can on topic relevant truth be conflated with trolling as per the board definition. The board has quite a sensible definition of trolling that is beneficial. If you present debunked, obviously false information repeatedly you are spreading misinformation intentionally. This may not fit with "trolling" in the general sense but since that is IMPOSSIBLE to define correctly in every situation then the boards definition of trolling is very sensible.

Under that definition there are many trolls in DT.

Anyway great debate we are enjoying a sensible exchange of ideas. We believe you will be a good addition to DT. At least offering a civil back and forth of points of view.

Not that we in any way wish to say your post does not deserve the merits. We are pleased you have received them. You should also be far more valuable on DT than the vast majority of DT1 members. We don't know if already you are there.

However it is important for the reader to recognize clearly that although we have answered and offered counters to your points to the level we believe of debunking many of them (the ones we disagreed with not many of your points that are sensible and valid)  or at least pointing out they are not fully representative of the reality of the situation. Our posts have ZERO MERIT.

If you do not agree with this eddie and you believe it is unfair of us to say that. Then please point out which point of yours (the ones we underlined or even ones you think we have not addressed yet) and we will take another look and discuss this with you here. You may say that we only believe they are debunked when our argument is actually bogus. But since you have not countered we assume you are accepting our counters as valid.

That in no way means we do not believe you deserve the merits at all, you deserve them far more than 99% of people on meta. It is just an illustration of how one sided and broken the merit system is.  The truth is not valued here. It is inconvenient and shunned. Merit is the tool that will be used to silence inconvenient truths or turn down the volume soon so that you can just about hear them from page 90. You are either politically desirable or not depending on the level you support the status quo.

The reader can also witness that we are very very civil to any person that will be civil with us and not try to abuse our account or the account of our friends.  Fair is fair.

[Foxpup]

You claim Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT do you vixen? this is a view we do not share nor understand at this stage.

Then you should express your view more clearly. I do not share or understand your view that DT is centralised when its own members disagree about who should be allowed in it. It's hardly the ideal model of a single-minded colluding group, you have to admit.

This is going to be interesting.. or will we witness a high velocity vile vixen vanishing act?

Only if it ceases to be interesting. You'd better not bore me by repeating the same tired rant over and over again.

To summon the agent one it seems need only mention 'vixen' and it appears to assist as best it can.

Good vixens always come when called.

[The-One-Above-All]

You claim Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT do you vixen? this is a view we do not share nor understand at this stage.

Then you should express your view more clearly. I do not share or understand your view that DT is centralised when its own members disagree about who should be allowed in it. It's hardly the ideal model of a single-minded colluding group, you have to admit.

This is going to be interesting.. or will we witness a high velocity vile vixen vanishing act?

Only if it ceases to be interesting. You'd better not bore me by repeating the same tired rant over and over again.

To summon the agent one it seems need only mention 'vixen' and it appears to assist as best it can.

Good vixens always come when called.

As we explained the centralization of many aspects of control we were referring to the 1-10 listed as now controlled by merit.

However, Of course DT1 is very centralized since there is a core of colluding members. This collusion has been explained many times before. Please seek the dirty turds thread for a full explanation. If you still wish to debate that then we will.  I mean it can be seen as MORE centralized in our opinion that even the OLD DT system if you look at it sensibly. Theymos makes and changes the rules at any point so clearly he controls it if and when he chooses. In the last DT selection process there were clearly chosen by theymos many different members (not mostly chipmixer pumpers and pals dependent on keeping a roof over their heads with spamming low value garbage) these were old timers many probably super wealthy and probably real enthusiasts not financially motivated plebs.  These had less incentive to collude there seemed no real CORE or group that the otheres were all terrified to upset. Sure a couple of bad eggs perhaps. However since theymos was directly accountable for his selection and was required to put in or out new DT then those that ran the day to day trust system were arguably less colluding and more independent. Since they were less reliant on each others support to remain in DT, less reliant on each other maintain their SIGS, and were not accountable to each other.  So you can say that their behaviours were likely more decentralized than the new bunch that know their safety depends on supporting each others actions.

Anyway let's not get drawn back into discussions we have had numerous times before. We are talking about merit as we explained now.

SO NOW LET'S GET TO THE EXCITING PART.

You claim that tecshare should be blacklisted from DT. We are simply asking you to detail the reasons WHY tecshare should be blacklisted but members such as tman, lauda, nutildah  should NOT be blacklisted but you say SHOULD BE INCLUDED in DT? This seems unthinkable and totally irrational. However we want to see your reasons for saying this.

Let's not dance around it any longer. We want to hear your reasoning behind the claims you are making? Will you present your reasoning or will you REFUSE and RUN away?

Please present you explanation and we will engage you in civil reasonable debate.

[TMAN]

Took TAA off ignore.. same shit different day.

TAA - tumbleweed from Theymos - you can take it as how irrelevant you are to him!

laters fucko..

[Foxpup]

You claim that tecshare should be blacklisted from DT. We are simply asking you to detail the reasons WHY tecshare should be blacklisted but members such as tman, lauda, nutildah  should NOT be blacklisted but you say SHOULD BE INCLUDED in DT? This seems unthinkable and totally irrational. However we want to see your reasons for saying this.

Yes, I can see how that would seem unthinkable and irrational to someone who thinks DT is centralised. Let me try to explain it another way: I am a different person to you, and therefore I hold different opinions about certain things. My opinions even differ from those of other DT members, as difficult as that concept may be to comprehend for someone who believes that we're all of a single mind. For more examples of opinions I hold that may differ from other people's opinions, I think that lemons are okay and are the appropriate garnish for a martini, that homosexuality is fine and dandy, and that people who put ice in whisky should be shot.

[The-One-Above-All]

You claim that tecshare should be blacklisted from DT. We are simply asking you to detail the reasons WHY tecshare should be blacklisted but members such as tman, lauda, nutildah  should NOT be blacklisted but you say SHOULD BE INCLUDED in DT? This seems unthinkable and totally irrational. However we want to see your reasons for saying this.

Yes, I can see how that would seem unthinkable and irrational to someone who thinks DT is centralised. Let me try to explain it another way: I am a different person to you, and therefore I hold different opinions about certain things. My opinions even differ from those of other DT members, as difficult as that concept may be to comprehend for someone who believes that we're all of a single mind. For more examples of opinions I hold that may differ from other people's opinions, I think that lemons are okay and are the appropriate garnish for a martini, that homosexuality is fine and dandy, and that people who put ice in whisky should be shot.

We just explained clearly why DT is centralized, you don't seem able to debunk our points. Simply saying you disagree is not an argument.

Just like saying " it is my opinion" that tecshare should be black listed from DT and Tman, lauda and Nutildah should not be blacklisted. Not only that but I believe nutildah, lauda , and tman should be included on to the boards trust system, is avoiding and running away from presenting you reason or argument for that statement.

So again are you able or willing to say WHY you believe that? or will you try to avoid it because you know you can present no sensible case for that statement that will stand up to scrutiny?

This is the problem with meta, peoples opinions seem to be based upon reasoning that collapses under any mild scrutiny. Then they get angry, run away screaming troll.  

So what are the reasons why tecshare should be blacklisted and nutildah, lauda and tman should be included on DT?

[Foxpup]

We just explained clearly why DT is centralized, you don't seem able to debunk our points. Simply saying you disagree is not an argument.

You misunderstand. My argument is not simply me saying "I disagree". My argument is that the differing opinions between DT members observably demonstrate that DT is not centralised. My disagreement is being offered as evidence of the differing opinions I am referring to.

Just like saying " it is my opinion" that tecshare should be black listed from DT and Tman, lauda and Nutildah should not be blacklisted. Not only that but I believe nutildah, lauda , and tman should be included on to the boards trust system, is avoiding and running away from presenting you reason or argument for that statement.

So again are you able or willing to say WHY you believe that? or will you try to avoid it because you know you can present no sensible case for that statement that will stand up to scrutiny?

This is the problem with meta, peoples opinions seem to be based upon reasoning that collapses under any mild scrutiny. Then they get angry, run away screaming troll.

The beauty of opinions is that they don't have to be based upon reasoning. That's what distinguishes them from facts. Your apparent wilful inability to distinguish the two is why we claim you are a troll.

[The-One-Above-All]

We just explained clearly why DT is centralized, you don't seem able to debunk our points. Simply saying you disagree is not an argument.

You misunderstand. My argument is not simply me saying "I disagree". My argument is that the differing opinions between DT members observably demonstrate that DT is not centralised. My disagreement is being offered as evidence of the differing opinions I am referring to.

Just like saying " it is my opinion" that tecshare should be black listed from DT and Tman, lauda and Nutildah should not be blacklisted. Not only that but I believe nutildah, lauda , and tman should be included on to the boards trust system, is avoiding and running away from presenting you reason or argument for that statement.

So again are you able or willing to say WHY you believe that? or will you try to avoid it because you know you can present no sensible case for that statement that will stand up to scrutiny?

This is the problem with meta, peoples opinions seem to be based upon reasoning that collapses under any mild scrutiny. Then they get angry, run away screaming troll.

The beauty of opinions is that they don't have to be based upon reasoning. That's what distinguishes them from facts. Your apparent wilful inability to distinguish the two is why we claim you are a troll.

You heard it here first folks

OPINIONS NEED NOT BE BASED ON REASON you are a troll to believe that opinions offered in debate should be based on some form of reasoning.  Brilliant.  So just keep voicing your "opinions" that you DARE not present the reasoning upon which you formed "your opinion", or just don't bother with any reasoning to form opinions. LOL  


Agent foxpoop.

THEN just keep spouting them as if they are some valid argument against OPPOSING opinions that are grounded in reasoning that nobody can debunk. This is why meta is the twilight zone. The fact mods have given your post merits clearly demonstrates they do not have the capacity to be mods.

Because you "say" you have different opinions on matters unrelated to TRUST and Governance does not refute our point that the decisions DT make now are NOT more decentralized than before. You said the OLD system was NOT decentralized. It clearly was MORE decentralized and we just pointed out clearly why the reasons for that and if you want us to copy the observable areas of COLLUSION from the drity turds thread we can.

Thanks for demonstrating your opinion that Tecshare should  be blacklisted from DT was unable to stand up to scrutiny and you dare not even present your reasons for stating that. OR you have not employed any reasoning you just pulled this statement out of your ass.

BRILLIANT. Give his post MORE merits. Meta board is FULL of people that scream troll at people that present the TRUTH in the form of observable instances and then can present statements based on reason that stands up to scrutiny. TROLLS

The fact Theymos sits there giving people that don't need to employ reason to form opinions merit source and DT positions and allowing mods to support this stupidity and corruption is a very poor reflection upon him.

Employ reasoning to establish opinions and be willing to debate it = TROLL.  says agent fox poop and supported by hilarious and co(ward) (more sniping with merts and NOT correcting his false allegations made earlier in the thread.

Come out and debate directly with us hilarious, on the corrupt moderation thread. We can't wait to hear your REASONING on marking deliberate off topic one liner insults BAD reports and then deleting our relevant to the central point / debunking false claims related to the central point. NON reasoning based opinions on how to moderate in action.

Merit = zero reasoning employed based opinions points
Trolling score= Presenting statements no person can refute supported by observable instances based upon reason.

when do we start turning peoples volume down with trolling score? less fighting, less squabbles, less reason, less truth, more fun, more chipmixer sig density on threads....


A fact does not = simply an opinion based upon the persons reasoning. Sorry for not accepting this nonsense and therefore being a troll by definition.

[suchmoon]

BRILLIANT. Give his post MORE merits.

Done. Hopefully this puts me back in your good graces.

[The-One-Above-All]

BRILLIANT. Give his post MORE merits.

Done. Hopefully this puts me back in your good graces.

Ah, suchmixer, nice of you to spam your flagrant abuse of the trust system which draining away revenue that could be going to members that are not net negative.

How come now a sig spammer of CHIPMIXER's now too?  I get the cost of cookies can be substantial if consumed by the KG.

Why would such a brilliant demonstration of why merit is bogus put you anywhere but in our good graces? I mean we rely on your contributions to hammer home our central points.

Your "contributions" are always welcome. Now that you are getting paid per post in btc dust, we expect we'll hear even more from you voicing "opinions" on how things are brilliant here just as they are.

Stick around you know you can't stay away anyway. Let us fill your cookie jar...what is it roughly per post in USD this chipmixer pays you? how much per kilo of your fav cookies?

[Foxpup]

Let us fill your cookie jar...what is it roughly per post in USD this chipmixer pays you? how much per kilo of your fav cookies?

Allow me. ChipMixer pays BTC0.00075 per post, or ~$7.60. And what you no doubt believe to be suchmoon's favourite cookies* cost $2.69 per 175g, or $15.37 per kilo. That's almost exactly half a kilo of cookies per post! Better pedal hard to work off those calories!

*Sorry, suchmoon. I just couldn't resist.

[suchmoon]

Ah, suchmixer, nice of you to spam your flagrant abuse of the trust system which draining away revenue that could be going to members that are not net negative.

Ironically it's the shitposting assholes such as yourself that motivate me to stick around and to help clean the forum up.

Well, that, and the 25kg of cookies per week. I'll bring some to the debate, please bring a gallon of milk.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What!? No more home-made cookies Suchie? Pffft.

[suchmoon]

What!? No more home-made cookies Suchie? Pffft.

We'll find a way to make this work. Can't have too much of a good thing.

[The-One-Above-All]

Ah, suchmixer, nice of you to spam your flagrant abuse of the trust system which draining away revenue that could be going to members that are not net negative.

Ironically it's the shitposting assholes such as yourself that motivate me to stick around and to help clean the forum up.

Well, that, and the 25kg of cookies per week. I'll bring some to the debate, please bring a gallon of milk.

LOL come on cookie munching sig spammer stop making us laugh.

You clean up the forum by

1. allowing us to humiliate you and debunk your arguments over and over
2. Helping bump our valuable threads
3. reporting on topic relevant truths to deprive the reader of important information
4. Refuse to remove a proven scammer, probable extortionist, probable escrow scammer from DT and accuse the warden of the board of being sneaky and heavy handed because he suggested doing so.
5. Include other observable scammers and scam facilitators into the trust system.
6. make ludicrous moronic statements that even you must be embarrassed about.
7. derail threads with selfies of yourself without the blonde wig
8. try to spin that discovering the largest scam and forcing a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer to the entire board is net negative
9. exist at all, so people have to endure more of your haters posting the ugly truth of your DNA sequence (before your pal deleted it in under 2 mins)
10.Now helping increase the density of chipmixer sigs in meta for less than 8 bucks per net negative slobbering you make.

Yep more cleaning up please suchMIXER you sig spamming broke down fool. Who would need spam a sig after all of these years and 2 huge bull runs. What a loser?  have you been following The ANTI MIDAS aka nutildah trading tips recently or let lauda find your priv keys?

OR just greed has taken over??

At least though you are not a full on coward like your pal and sig spamming reference for chipmixer enrollment.. hilarious and co(ward)

Let's quote some impartial and mod worthy out put from this snivelling dreg...

I hope you accept suchmoon if only because it will annoy cryptocunter to no end. He's also a great poster and fellow meta merit felcher. I am also willing to offer you a bribe in merits for your co-operation.

The impartial Global mob that is meant to be an objective and impartial enforcer of the boards rules  LOL

Theymos has allowed this boards trust system and moderation to become a laughing stock. His answer? turn the volume down on those that complain and give the abusers more weapons and greater access to the rev streams. BRILLIANT.

DT is crammed full of those that are observably financially high risk or outright scammers, mods just openly in league with them. Both working together to cream off their 8 bucks per self serving suggestion and post.  That's not enough though since mods are also paid out directly from board generated funds. So everyone elses posts fund this corrupt moderation and assistance of prohibiting the average member getting a fair chance at the pie. haha

Come here coward. Join with suchmoon in cleaning up the forum by trying (and failing every time) to debunk some of our central points rather than hiding away with your delete button, deleting our on topic , relevant (inconvenient) truths.

[suchmoon]

The impartial Global mob that is meant to be an objective and impartial enforcer of the boards rules  LOL

They don't call him Don Hilary for nothing.

[MoparMiningLLC]

Allow me. ChipMixer pays BTC0.00075 per post, or ~$7.60. And what you no doubt believe to be suchmoon's favourite cookies* cost $2.69 per 175g, or $15.37 per kilo. That's almost exactly half a kilo of cookies per post! Better pedal hard to work off those calories!

*Sorry, suchmoon. I just couldn't resist.

I read this entire thread - took the better part of a two hours - had to take a break that involved copious amounts of coffee and aspirin.... and I all I got from it is the above.


I WANT $7.60 per post  

[The-One-Above-All]

The impartial Global mob that is meant to be an objective and impartial enforcer of the boards rules  LOL

They don't call him Don Hilary for nothing.

Notice you don't dispute the rest of our post. You are getting too easy.

[suchmoon]

Notice you don't dispute the rest of our post.

Sorry, there wasn't anything else funny or otherwise worthwhile in it. Maybe you could try to come up with more elaborate fairy tales and fresh insults and some extra text. Definitely needs more text, it just wasn't worth reading.

[The-One-Above-All]

Notice you don't dispute the rest of our post.

Sorry, I'm scared to tackle your undeniable points, so I will try to say something that requires I need not attempt a rebuttal. This will save me being humiliated again.

Ran your reply through the old truth filter.

Was your last post even long enough to qualify for $7.60? I mean is there not a minimum character requirement?

How many posts today so far suchsigspammer?

Around 25 or so yesterday? that's a good spam rate. I hope you don't cause chipmixer to go under. Think of those poor wretches like pharmacist. He must be shitting bricks now you and robovac are spamming the shit out of chipmixer. They will surely drop the rates soon.

Oh i see they only pay max 50 per week.   

At least you can ease up a little now. It that small amount of btc dust worth it? I mean either you are the worst trader of all time ( except the ANTI MIDAS) or else you are just being greedy. Let some of the newer ass felchers have your spot. Come on now.

[suchmoon]

Was your last post even long enough to qualify for $7.60?

Probably not. I hope DarkStar_ considers this a spam megathread and doesn't pay anyone.

[legendster]

Was your last post even long enough to qualify for $7.60?

Probably not. I hope DarkStar_ considers this a spam megathread and doesn't pay anyone.

For this to become a spam megathread, there's a need for numerous people to take things literally and seriously that this belligerent fool of a gollum-inspired-numbnut has spewed out here.

In any case, I hope the mods lock this shit. This is my request.

[BitcoinEXpress]

@OP

I can see you're a relative newbie here. I've been here since 2011 with this name and year before that under another.

I haven't been too active in the past couple of years mainly due to the meds keeping me compliant and suppressing the various personalities in my head.

Three out of the four voices in my head are telling me to remain in retirement but one voice in particular is getting louder compelling me to come back...... but I digress.


Back in the old days, even before there was an Alt Forum with Namecoin being the only "altcoin" at the time, everyone knew the secret code to getting Theymos' attention.
You have to use red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps.
Works like a charm.
So you should reformat your entire OP in red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps.


HEY THERMOS, YOU STILL AROUND BRO?


Theymos usually answers in 24 hours or less with this technique and YES I misspelled Theymos on purpose, there's a history there.



~BCX~

 

[Viper1]

This must be a very important thread if BCX thinks it's worthy of his time... hmmmm. Now we just need Spoetnik to make an appearance and it will be confirmed.

[The-One-Above-All]

@OP

I can see you're a relative newbie here. I've been here since 2011 with this name and year before that under another.

I haven't been too active in the past couple of years mainly due to the meds keeping me compliant and suppressing the various personalities in my head.

Three out of the four voices in my head are telling me to remain in retirement but one voice in particular is getting louder compelling me to come back...... but I digress.


Back in the old days, even before there was an Alt Forum with Namecoin being the only "altcoin" at the time, everyone knew the secret code to getting Theymos' attention.
You have to use red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps.
Works like a charm.
So you should reformat your entire OP in red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps.


HEY THERMOS, YOU STILL AROUND BRO?


Theymos usually answers in 24 hours or less with this technique and YES I misspelled Theymos on purpose, there's a history there.



~BCX~

 

Been around for a while

You don't sound like the "old" bcx though





@ Legendster
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5176043.0

Please don't sully our threads with your turd world servile slobbering. Address the central points pajeet or get back to feltching your masters for merits and clawing your way out of the gutter.

@Viper1

Spoetnik was crushed by a true legend so badly in public for being a paid off dark shill he never seemed the same after that. Shame since once he was a semi valuable member.

Theymos has only demonstrated time and time again.

1/ he is afraid to debate or discuss his brilliant decentralized control systems because they are pure garbage
2/ he is afraid to tackle and remove blatant scammers, scam facilitators and other financially dangerous members from positions of trust.
3/ he is allowing corrupt mods to blatantly and flagrantly abuse their positions to protect their sig campaign spots and create echo chambers.

therefore opening himself and this board to legitimate criticisms about free speech and agendas being pushed here.

Hence why he may blurt out a couple of one line false accusations or poorly researched and undeniably incorrect statements before hiding up again and deleting threads that ask for presentation of the evidence he claims exists.

If you can debunk anything we have just said. Bring your evidence and we can examine it together. Of course you will not because meta board only attracts the spineless bullies and their servile rag tag turd world felchers.

Don't need his attention. Simply looking at prior engagements and discussions is all you need. Not to mention the results of his brilliant designs are clear for all to verify by themselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.msg52014561#msg52014561

He also gives merit to posts that are clearly a faux rebuttals
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.msg48852692#msg48852692



Here go read and digest. If you can debunk anything there again bring your argument. Nobody has as yet.

Theymos is a mixed bag. Seems though people need to be part of a crowd or be popular.  They put this before doing the right thing.  That is frustrating.
His latest merit = volume design is one of the most damning yet really. More rev streams for merit cycling, more control to push the merit cylers agendas.

Merit cancer. The social credit system but lacking any transparent clear rules and all the subjective rules now applied differently to the different "tiers" of members. LOL  what a total mess.

The reason there is no debate FROM ANYONE is because there can be no serious debate in light of the overwhelming evidence is terms of undeniable implications and current results of these broken designs. There can be no rebuttal that holds up under even mild scrutiny hence why derailing and off topic garbage is spewed out by those that are currently the beneficiaries of this ill conceived experiment.

Theymos is opening himself and this board up to legitimate criticism and it is already spilling out past the boundaries of this forum to other places. This is not good for bitcoin and not good for the entire movement.

Transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members is the only acceptable way forward. You can not build control systems on top of a metric that is wide open to gaming and abuse and continually incetivize financially (and in other ways) the gaming and abuse. There can really be no argument about this, only a person with very unrealistic expectations with regard human nature would even attempt to do so. Either that or someone that deliberately wants an echo chamber and abuse and no accountability.

[qwertyup23]

I'm actually surprised that he/she has the patience to write down huge blocks of text despite knowing that no one would even attempt to read it. With that kind of knowledge, the merit system is indeed lacking to your expertise and knowledge. We don't deserve you!

#sarcasm

[The-One-Above-All]

I'm actually surprised that he/she has the patience to write down huge blocks of text despite knowing that no one would even attempt to read it. With that kind of knowledge, the merit system is indeed lacking to your expertise and knowledge. We don't deserve you!

#sarcasm

Give this yapping dog some merits. Or visit his paid 2 post shithole he is advertising. PAID2POST
Again, try to make some kind of rebuttal to our central points or fuck off. Tired of fools that are too weak to attempt to refute a specific point.

It is simple. Find a specific point you disagree with and present your counter argument.
Have another go or get back to your PAID2POST forum to eek out some btc dust.

[Viper1]

I'm actually surprised that he/she has the patience to write down huge blocks of text despite knowing that no one would even attempt to read it. With that kind of knowledge, the merit system is indeed lacking to your expertise and knowledge. We don't deserve you!

#sarcasm

Give this yapping dog some merits. Or visit his paid 2 post shithole he is advertising. PAID2POST
Again, try to make some kind of rebuttal to our central points or fuck off. Tired of fools that are too weak to attempt to refute a specific point.

It is simple. Find a specific point you disagree with and present your counter argument.
Have another go or get back to your PAID2POST forum to eek out some btc dust.

What if we find all your posts a complete waste of time since nothing will come of it. I mean, I know you seem to be the sort that likes to just hear himself talk and call others names to make yourself feel better. So why don't you just admit that's your purpose with this thread as opposed to anything else. Or maybe you're just bored with your life and this is your only form of entertainment. Curious minds want to know.

[The-One-Above-All]

I'm actually surprised that he/she has the patience to write down huge blocks of text despite knowing that no one would even attempt to read it. With that kind of knowledge, the merit system is indeed lacking to your expertise and knowledge. We don't deserve you!

#sarcasm

Give this yapping dog some merits. Or visit his paid 2 post shithole he is advertising. PAID2POST
Again, try to make some kind of rebuttal to our central points or fuck off. Tired of fools that are too weak to attempt to refute a specific point.

It is simple. Find a specific point you disagree with and present your counter argument.
Have another go or get back to your PAID2POST forum to eek out some btc dust.

What if we find all your posts a complete waste of time since nothing will come of it. I mean, I know you seem to be the sort that likes to just hear himself talk and call others names to make yourself feel better. So why don't you just admit that's your purpose with this thread as opposed to anything else. Or maybe you're just bored with your life and this is your only form of entertainment. Curious minds want to know.

If you are curious, then simply read the thread. The answers you seek are contained within.

If you are unable to debunk our central points here then just either agree or walk away. No point SPECULATING on our motives for presenting the truth is there.

Sorry if the truth is inconvenient or  because you believe the truth will go ignored it is a waste of time to present it.

Perhaps conduct a little research before making your posts so there is some meat to them rather than the empty feeling one is left with after trying to digest your word salad.

If it helps, you may consider out attitude and manner of reply as a mirror .... come making # sarcastic or rude remarks then expect to be treated accordingly and named as we feel best fits you.

Most people are easy targets here. In that they fall into negative categories that are undeniable.

1. scammers
2. scammer supporters
3. sig spamming feltchers that will spout the most stupid remarks to support their financial shit posting careers
4. idiots
5. employing clear double standards
6. long term low achievers and nothing burgers
7. The weak, that although may not belong in the above 1-6 are still too pathetic to speak up against those abusing the systems of control

Actually we can think of none that do not fall into those 1-7

Well there may be 1 or 2 but those are still not really worth counting on. They would likely accept (not enjoy) "working beside" rather than crushing these parasitic scum.
They may not approve or may actually dislike what is clearly taking place within the systems of control, but are not strong enough or motivated enough to push for fair transparent standards and rules that ensure all members are treated equally.

[Viper1]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

[The-One-Above-All]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

The merit systems suck because of multiple reasons detailed here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.msg48852692#msg48852692

Except it sucks much more now because it is the trust system and now the volume control for all members.

Nobody cares about STATUS legendary or otherwise people ONLY care about the financial advantages and rev streams merit opens up and how you can use it to control the competition.

The only legends here are those that have DONE SOMETHING significant that has made a difference. We would say in a positive way, others may argue there are legends in a negative way that will be part of the history here.


We would not fit into any of those categories when using as context the current crop of meta board inhabitants.

[Viper1]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

[Viper1]

The merit systems suck because of multiple reasons detailed here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.msg48852692#msg48852692

I really wish you hadn't included cryptohunter in here. I knew him and we had talked, discussed and argued about things in the past. It's clear to me that whoever is in control of that account now is not him and that it happened sometime around the beginning of last November. It really ticks me off seeing those sorts of crap posts with his account. Him and I didn't always see eye to eye but he was a decent guy.

[suchmoon]

I really wish you hadn't included cryptohunter in here. I knew him and we had talked, discussed and argued about things in the past. It's clear to me that whoever is in control of that account now is not him and that it happened sometime around the beginning of last November. It really ticks me off seeing those sorts of crap posts with his account. Him and I didn't always see eye to eye but he was a decent guy.

You do realize you're talking to cryptohunter's alt here, right?

[Viper1]

I really wish you hadn't included cryptohunter in here. I knew him and we had talked, discussed and argued about things in the past. It's clear to me that whoever is in control of that account now is not him and that it happened sometime around the beginning of last November. It really ticks me off seeing those sorts of crap posts with his account. Him and I didn't always see eye to eye but he was a decent guy.

You do realize you're talking to cryptohunter's alt here, right?

Not cryptohunters. It's most likely they're all Quicksilver alts that he's created and/or, like in the case of cryptohunter, bought. Which is hillarious. Cause back when he just got that account he was going into threads speaking out about buying accounts etc. Cute tactic on his part.

[The-One-Above-All]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.

If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as  transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves?  that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.

If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.

If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.

Why would you claim we are not cryptohunter because " he was a good guy". ?

We are good guys. Cryptohunter is on vacation but has asked us to step in.

Cryptohunter would never have sold his account. We are pretty certain of this.

What about our posts says to you " we are not good guys"?

We are big fans of Cryptohunter, anyone reading his entire post history should be nothing other than HIGHLY impressed with such a fair, trustworthy and insightful member (not theymos because theymos has no clue about anything here except shitty meta board) . Suchmoon is a scammer supporter and sig spamming dreg now. She was humiliated time and time again by cryptohunter and crushed down time and time again by him. She is now only able to come to threads and try to derail with off topic garbage. She will never dare tackle any central points.

She fits many of the 1-7. Undeniably so.

We are only interested in sensible reasoned debate. People like foxpoop who come here spouting opinions as if they are credible rebuttals, then admit there is no reasoning behind their opinions at all and there need not be, will be crushed in public. These are wasting our time and the readers time.

Viper is at least making some reasonable effort to support his points. So if he can be civil with us he will be treated in the same way.

We reject his opinion we are not "good guys" though.

[Viper1]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.

If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as  transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves?  that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.

If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.

If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

[The-One-Above-All]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.

If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as  transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves?  that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.

If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.

If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

There see. You can do it. No need for reading into anything other than what we are posting here. Just ask.

No goading.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.

You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?

This a pathetic attempt to goad you into speculation on satoshis real principles you say? for some selfish reason?

There is no need to get angry and upset. Just give your opinions, we will debate them and we're off....

Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?
Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?

I don't think we should talk ill of other excellent members either in their absence. Sometimes development of such systems takes time. Is that better than rushing out experimental untested designs like for instance the merit system?  perhaps it is. We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less. We don't seek to claim we can say either way. However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked. Simply because his posting style inflamed some that does not at all mean he was not strongly net positive for this forum. People still mention him even now, that is interesting is it not.

[Viper1]

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.

You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?

The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what  your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.

Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?

What are you talking about? The forum, or bitcoin? Satoshi had nothing to do with the forum in terms of how it is or should be run.

Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?

The concept of decentralized e-cash is better. Whether or not bitcoin will achieve that we won't know for many years to come. We haven't even reached the point yet where miners have to rely purely on fees to pay their bills. That could completely change a lot of things for bitcoin. It's also not hard to come up with many ways the governments could shut down all crypto if they really wanted to. With all the KYC and stuff already permeating this space, it's a slow march towards it becoming just an extension of the current financial system. But none of that has to do with the topic of this thread.

We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less.

He was really good at making those that don't know better, think he always knew what he was talking about and that he was right. He would overwhelm people with walls of text and he would jump around from one thing to another making it impossible for anyone to effectively debate him and then actually reach any sort of real conclusion as to who was right. It's a common tactic by those that only seek to "win"...   "Claiming" you were right does not mean you are. Posting one sided threads saying you're right or you came up with something etc, does not make it so. Most people just couldn't be bothers pointing out where he was right or wrong. Which means he could not really be believed a lot of the time. Having said that, I did value some of his technical discussions up to the point he would start to "go off the deep end" so to speak at which point there was no longer any value in what he would have to say.

However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked.

You would be completely wrong there but I'm not going to bother digging up instances to this, some of them I was involved with in the past which is why I know this to be true.

This thread is supposed to be about the forum is it not?

[The-One-Above-All]

@Viper

A good post with some elements of high value for sure. Sorry we are out later this evening and had a few things to finish up before ..hence the delay in reply.

Let us leave our differing opinions on anonymint. We feel he brought a lot of value in many ways to the forum. Many we know shared this opinion including cryptohunter. Also leaving aside the future outcome of bitcoin itself based on current design.

Let us rather as you say get back to the discussion more related to the initial post.


This part of your post

The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what  your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.


Is very interesting and  is not only inline with our own view, it is observable true. Of course one must naturally assume each person will act as selfishly as possible within the permitted range.

We get that whilst there is ANY human decision making required that  100% fair and 100 equal is difficult target to hit.  However, as you NARROW the range/room for subjectivity (abuse) you IMPROVE the fairness and equal treatment of all members. As you REDUCE the incentive and reward for ABUSE and increase the Punishment and shame of abusing then again you are going to see and increase in the fairness and equal treatment of all members.

We have made MANY suggestions for improvements to both the trust system and merit system. These "improvements" are EXACTLY those we wanted to debate with theymos openly.

These alterations should be debated in public and analysed then implemented if the pro's clearly and reasonably out weigh the negatives.

Not to be rude to you, but the fact that you seem to believe we have simply been complaining and not offering up clear suggestions to mitigate some of the clear issues that are observably there means you have not been reading our posts. Hence why you seem to be suggesting we are not "good guys". We feel if you had read all of our posts ( that is a tall request we appreciate) you would start to realize we are the good guys.

Let us run though just a few common sense "improvements" that would clearly reduce the opportunity to abuse the systems and the financial incentive to do so.

1. DT1 and DT2 should have an immediate blacklisting policy for ANY member that has ANY clear observable financially motivated wrong doing in their history here.
2. Merit (distributed by merit sources) should have some strict criteria that needs to be met for a post to qualify for merit. Their max merit allocation per post should be in the 1-3 range and there should be a maximum amount to another member of 20 in one year. 50 merit allocations for " zzzzzzz" or other garbage skew things hugely. A post does not meet the criteria for merit or it does. We would prefer a max merit of 1 but 3 for good, outstanding, or Brilliant.
3. Merit sources that distribute merit to posts that do NOT meet that criteria are removed.
4. Merit sources should also be blacklisted on the same grounds as mentioned in (1)
5. Merit should NOT be so heavily weighted with regard TRUST, there should be strong activity link to ensure a min time to power up alts and friends and heavily punish blacklisting in regeneration time.
6. Sig campaign managers must NOT rely on trust and merit scores alone (at this stage) they must be able to offer explanation (that stands up to scrutiny) for their selection process.
7. Moderators clearly abusing their position must be removed at once. Abuse as in clear double standards in post deletion and other areas.
8. There can be many other tweaks to merit to prevent lemming meriting and other kinds of influences over merit allocation that should not really be there.

The most important part is merit since everything else seems to be being built upon the merit scores now. It would not be difficult to create a set of criteria that must be met in order for merit to be given out by merit sources. In our opinion cryptohunter was the only person that was opening up discussion on how to quantify post value and also thrash out permitted flow. Creating set of criteria and definitions that should be followed by merit sources.

Yes there will always be room for human subjectivity which can be gamed for selfish gain. However reducing this margin to its absolute minimum makes absolute sense.

It is like opening a bank. You don't just get every ones money chuck in a big room and tell people just take out what is yours when you need it and walk off.  You set up measures to ensure they can only extract what is theirs. Sure at some points humans are making decisions and those points are points of failure. It is simply a case of ensuring those measures you put in place reduces the opportunities and increases the punishments for trying to take more than your own money out or enabling others to do so.

We should be discussing the ways to improve it and make things fairer for all not fighting to maintain the very broken status quo.

We believe when cryptohunter started to analyse the link between the abuse of the systems of control, those abusing them and the implications financially for the successful and rampant abuse then he noticed a very strong similarity to those gaming and abusing the initial distribution of alt coins and the subsequent manipulation and gaming of the markets of those projects.   The latest merit volume control be implemented is actually the most worrying yet. That should be scrapped/adapted immediately. Activity with a far smaller merit weighting would be far more appropriate. Though really if again "merit" was actually hard to game and was even near to representing REAL MERIT then it would not be so bad. Theymos seems to be learning slowly since he gave any activity weighting at all.

the above 7 points may seem confusing since some are assuming merit in its current form, not merit as it could be if earlier points on that list were already implemented.

The key is ensuring  merit resembles REAL MERIT. The rest then almost starts to make more sense rather than being a total and utter cluster fuck and in our view ANTI satoshi.

The foundation must be solid or near solid before building upon it.

ALSO WE NOTICE

that one of your posts viper was deleted?? we did not report it nor believe it should be deleted.

We are not sure why that happened? but we do find it interesting.

Who did report and delete it we wonder?

[Viper1]

Years ago I used to run chat rooms. I have a low tolerance for a lot of things when it comes to those that are put in a position of power. I hold anyone to a higher standard and if they can't live up to that, then they're gone. I had time limits for how long anyone could remain in that position because human nature it to become cynical and "corrupt" in their own way. Leaving people in positions where they seemed to create more controversy for me was simply not worth it in the end.

1. DT1 and DT2 should have an immediate blacklisting policy for ANY member that has ANY clear observable financially motivated wrong doing in their history here.

No one that has any "power" or "perceived" power should have more than 1 and any potential favoritism should be removed/minimized. i.e. a mod should not be able to garner merit. They should not have any involvement with trust either. This would cut out a ton of crap right there. The trust system should only be used for actual business related things as opposed to what we currently see a lot of time where people get into some forum spat and it's used by tribes to black ball someone. No one should have any "power" if their use of the forum can in any way, be a conflict of interest or be perceived as a conflict of interest. Those are just a few of the changes off the top of my head I would start to make if this was my forum.

2. Merit ......

The entire merit system is fundamentally flawed as I stated before. It's a reward and people will abuse it. It cannot be "fixed". The current merit system is basically a "like". Twitter has recognized how "like" has created so much of the crap they experience on their site, the toxic atmosphere etc, and they're seriously looking to remove it all together.

What is the problem that merit was put in place to solve by replacing the previous system of ranks etc? That's where the solution lies, in solving that problem as opposed to trying to make the merit system "work". It is fundamentally flawed and will never work well. As a stop gap, I suppose one could prevent anyone from giving more than one. Add in negative merit so the board (yt has both thumbs up and down for a reason) does a little bit of self regulation and let the chaos reign until people realize that abusing the system, on both sides, is counter productive. That would be fun to watch for awhile. Bottom line though, the actual underlying problem is what needs to be fixed, not what's been taped over top of it and so most of your list if worthless.

6. Sig campaign managers must NOT rely on trust and merit scores alone (at this stage) they must be able to offer explanation (that stands up to scrutiny) for their selection process.

Ok? Until the other problems are resolved it just doesn't matter. It's the only thing they can use right now so I'm indifferent. Having said that, if sig campaigns are at the root of why merit was implemented, and it's now involving trust in order to qualify to be in a campaign, then I would probably approach it from a completely different angle. i.e., if they're the problem, make them come up with a solution. Make them come up with their own completely separate system of qualifying people that does not include those forum systems. How that could all work I have no idea off the top of my head but sometimes you need to divorce yourself from the problem and let those that create it solve it for you. It's in their best interest to not be a problem for the board cause at the end of the day, the final solution it to just ban all sig campaigns outright.

7. Moderators clearly abusing their position must be removed at once. Abuse as in clear double standards in post deletion and other areas.

That should be a given.

Hence why you seem to be suggesting we are not "good guys".

How one communicates is as, if not more important than what you communicate. You're method of communicating is, more often than not, full of personal attacks, inuendo, misleading information and more that only serves to make people tune out from the message. If you "guys" approached things in a more rational and constructive manner maybe I'd see things in a different light.


Two of my posts were deleted. Don't see why they should have been but whatever.

[The-One-Above-All]

@viper

Again we are in agreement on several points. We differ mostly because although we believe you are correct regarding fixing merit entirely is impossible, we think that theymos has based so much upon this garbage now he will never actually remove it. So improvements are the only possible option. We do believe it could be semi useful if the abuse and incentive to abuse was greatly reduced. We believe those points we outlined would certainly help with that and could move merit scores to represent something more closely related to REAL MERIT. This still does not = TRUST as you have correctly mentioned. Making merit = trust was MORE idiocy on theymos part. The very notion that those that cycle the most merit to each other get to also determine who goes into DT1 is the most random and weird thing we have seen here.

When you start to examine the systems of control very carefully you will see that campaign managers deferring responsibility to DT and merit sources to determine THEIR OWN ELIGIBILITY to these highly paid sig campaigns in pure idiocy on theymos part. They are only accountable to themselves. Can you imagine how insane that kind of set up is. That is without even considering the other 10 points merit sources/ DT's pretty much control.

The points of your post we do not agree with are.

1. we are not randomly rude to people as you seem to be suggesting. If you can find one person that we have been rude to before they have either attacked us or been rude to us then feel free to present it.

2. We do not present ANY misleading information. Again if you believe something is misleading that we have presented then you can bring it for analysis because that certainly is not something we believe has taken place. We have challenged MANY times for ANY person to demonstrate our central points are incorrect. No person has ever presented even on instance of that.

3. We believe it DOES MATTER why your posts were deleted. We as the thread starter did not report them, so who did report them? why  did they report them and why were they deleted. In light of the fact that we the thread starter report off topic deliberately derailing garbage with zero value and they are marked bad by mods and they do not delete them, we report random 1 liner insults that just blurt out " who made this cunt bleed" " shut up you used tampon" or " don't feed the troll " and these are NOT deleted and marked bad.
We only noticed 1 of your posts was deleted. I would be interested in seeing which other posts from this thread were deleted. Please PM me the deletes. I would like to examine them.
The topic of corrupt moderation needs to be tackled first. Since it is the easiest to fix.


We are guessing because you mentioned something about cryptohunter they were NOT happy about. This demonstrates what kind of corruption we are dealing with here.

It does matter if mods are corrupt and pushing agendas here. It is wrong moderators are part of the merit and trust system and also benefit directly from the same sig campaigns that dominate meta and sponsor the self elected DT members.

Perhaps time to weed out these kinds of corrupt individuals. Start looking into it. It is one big racket here. This is precisely why cryptohunter became VERY INTERESTED in the corruption and scamming at the top here of this board.

What better way for the most corrupt and largest bunch of scammers and manipulators to " look like good guys" by busting MINI scams. These people have NEVER tackled the HUGE well entrenched scams like real legends like cryptohunter did. These people find some micro 2 bit scammers ( that could be their pals or alts in some cases) and bust them?  WOW that makes a big difference. It is like playing whack a mole. The entire bunch of DT1 scam busting obsessive members are non achieving self serving scum bags. Their entire scam busting does ZERO when looking at the big picture. They don't even ATTEMPT to tackle big scams and MANY OF THEM are prior supporters on the BIGGEST scams.

This is not at all misleading. We can bring evidence to corroborate anything that we state.

Do the research, you will soon start to realize the entire systems of control are NET NEGATIVE and do far more harm than good. Only theymos is perhaps NOT in on it. Just enabling it by playing with systems he obviously does not understand and does not care to debate on.

Would be maybe okay to experiment if you put some training wheels on it. Like for instance " what you are a proven scammer? off DT and blacklisted"  " what you are red trusting people for whistle blowing, off DT and blacklisted"  " what you are a mod and marking one liner insults like ..who made this cunt bleed .. BAD, whilst deleting on topic relevant posts" bye bye mod position blacklisted from DT,  " what you are giving merit to already debunked insults and garbage"  bye bye merit source

Then people "may" start to get the message. Hey we better use these systems as they are intended to be used or we will get kicked the fuck out. You only need to have a firm hand for a while before people understand hey this guy is not a pussy we can take the piss out of whilst stripping the boards rev streams from under his very nose by gaming his wide open systems...

I mean what is the worst that can happen to a multiple scammer, extortionist, trust abuser here? after telling theymos to his face fuck off I will even abuse your new systems straight away??
NOTHING AT ALL... blacklisted from DT1?? LOL
So you still get to put red marks on people and your abuse stands, you still get to be part of the highest paid sig campaigns and NOTHING happens at all.

What happens if you stand up to these people?? theymos says... well looking at my corrupt mods gamed deletion racket with suchmoon, pharmacist, morobozo etc it seems you will need to be banned soon??? LOL

Err hang on theymos though, I am  (says cryptohunter) probably the largest scam fighter here EVER, and have brought to attention MANY OF the largest REAL  scams, fought them to offering a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation to the entire board, against the people that are trust abusing my account now with proven scammer friends. Never have ANY instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Have pushed for fair release protocol for all members that were mining POW coins on wave 1 alts. For fair and transparent distribution on MANY large projects for months against gangs of selfish scum bags. Given tips to investors and made many millionaires just for the fun of it and to help others people have created threads to thank me. So now you are siding with scammers and corrupt scum and claiming I will be banned on some obviously gamed metric.

Yes, sorry to many deleted posts where you are presenting inconvenient truths that no person could debunk. Soon a ban for you. Plus you are insane because you get angry when scammers trust abuse you and I allow it for months. Also you told lies.

Err what lies Theymos? can you present these lies. Sorry says theymos , going to delete your thread where you ask I present the lies because... err I have probably spent all of 1 nano second and noticed there are NO LIES now, I was just duped by a bunch of scumbags into believing there were some lies.

Wake up theymos you are being duped here. This bunch of rag tag scum are not protecting your board from scammers, they are the self serving scammers and their supporters creaming off the rev streams for themselves ..best sig spots, campaign managing, escrowing, all rev streams actually... determining who gets to trade, or offer services....controlling now which projects get attention with the new merit = volume - upgrade...LOL are you sure about this theymos haha...yeah lets let the proven scammers and scammer supporters, trust abusers control it all. It seems like a perfect system to ensure only the most sneaky and devious scammers and their pals get to concentrate in one colluding mass and then put the entire board at their mercy.

Wakey Wakey, cock a doodle doo.....

The merit volume control = another big mistake.

So let's get back firmly to the initial post.

Where are you theymos?? all we want is a sensible open debate. Surely you have some brilliant explanation of why your systems of control are handing every conceivable advantage to those that are either scammers, or scammer supporters, or employ openly double standards, or worse?  We only wish to understand the masterplan at work. Is this like some honey pot trap ? where you then ban every member on DT1 and DT2 and all the largest merit cyclers in one foul swoop after a little longer to ensure you take out the most dangerous members all in one hit?

That would indeed be brilliant? Just PM us to let us know and we will stop speculating in public about it?