alts potentially manipulating the trust system - should they be blacklisted?

[nutildah]

(edited to make the title Meta-appropriate)

Even though we haven't heard much from cryptohunter lately (gee, where'd he go?), with his last post being on November 29th of last year, he continues to log in and update his trust list. The-One-Above-All apparently never came back from vacation, but thank goodness cryptohunter's truly legendary legacy could be continued by truth or dare, that is until March 11th, when they mysteriously vanished.

You can see all 3 of these members have been updating their respective trust lists relatively recently, with cryptohunter updating his list just this week:

cryptohunter
The-One-Above-All
truth or dare

As all 3 of these members have over 10 merits, their votes count in the DT selection, and I thought it was a bit unnerving that he frequently uses all 3 accounts to include the same members in his trust list. Of course these people have no control over whether CH adds them or not, but I just thought it was worth mentioning. The following accounts have been included in the trust lists of 2 or 3 of the aforementioned alts:

HostFat (2)
TECSHARE (3)
OgNasty (2)
Phinnaeus Gage (2)
Tomatocage (2)
peloso (2)
shorena (2)
Rmcdermott927 (3)
teeGUMES (3)
iluvbitcoins (2)
Thule (2)
Quickseller (2)
Royse777 (3)
bill gator (2)
stingers (2)
eddie13 (2)
TheFuzzStone (2)
hacker1001101001 (2)

Not saying it necessarily proves anything or changes DT in any measurable way, but cryptohunter and his (totally not) alts should be kept an eye on because there could come a day when someone is added to DT1 explicitly due to cryptohunter's manipulation.

I have not included bonesjonesreturns in this list as they only have 3 merits and do not have a trust list, so they are not relevant -- oh and also because they are in no way also cryptohunter... sure.

[1715214688]

1715214688

[1715214688]

1715214688

[1715214688]

1715214688

[suchmoon]

I mentioned earlier that "truth or dare" went off the cliff (i.e. devolved to his usual butthurt self) after being moderately sane for a while as soon as he earned 10+ merits. I wouldn't put it past him to be farming another stealth account as we speak.

Seeing how theymos blacklisted this farm I think blacklisting cryptohunter's alts would make sense too. Granted they didn't send merits to each other but they're clearly gaming the system by voting for the same users multiple times.

[teeGUMES]

I'd post a list like this too if I were too much of a coward to pull a Lauda and post and regularly bump my trust list. Four of the DT1 on this list distrust nutildah, let's see who this rallies in LoyceV's next trust list dump. If you weren't just a basic bitch nutildah you'd actually dig in further and see who provided the 10 merit needed to enable CH/TOAA/ToD to be able to have a meaningful vote. Chop chop bud. Probably a few names that you'd be a little bit more scared to make a post about.. I can see why you chose this route.

[suchmoon]

I'd post a list like this too if I were too much of a coward to pull a Lauda and post and regularly bump my trust list. Four of the DT1 on this list distrust nutildah, let's see who this rallies in LoyceV's next trust list dump. If you weren't just a basic bitch nutildah you'd actually dig in further and see who provided the 10 merit needed to enable CH/TOAA/ToD to be able to have a meaningful vote. Chop chop bud. Probably a few names that you'd be a little bit more scared to make a post about.. I can see why you chose this route.

You're completely missing the point. Whatever you think nutildah's motivation is - this shit is stupid.

Voting with alts should not be allowed. At the very least users who want to have trust lists on their alt accounts should ask theymos to have those accounts to be blacklisted from voting. The trust system allows you to vote for each DT1 candidate once. Bypassing that restriction with multiple accounts is not acceptable regardless of how you feel about the person bringing this up.

[teeGUMES]

I'd post a list like this too if I were too much of a coward to pull a Lauda and post and regularly bump my trust list. Four of the DT1 on this list distrust nutildah, let's see who this rallies in LoyceV's next trust list dump. If you weren't just a basic bitch nutildah you'd actually dig in further and see who provided the 10 merit needed to enable CH/TOAA/ToD to be able to have a meaningful vote. Chop chop bud. Probably a few names that you'd be a little bit more scared to make a post about.. I can see why you chose this route.

You're completely missing the point. Whatever you think nutildah's motivation is - this shit is stupid.

Voting with alts should not be allowed. At the very least users who want to have trust lists on their alt accounts should ask theymos to have those accounts to be blacklisted from voting. The trust system allows you to vote for each DT1 candidate once. Bypassing that restriction with multiple accounts should not be allowed.

That's great and I agree. You can't deny that posting names of a large bunch of us that are labelled as "on the other side" is a good way to get this across. What I'm saying without throwing mud at nutildah is that merit is too freely given (even though some of their early posts are meritable) which should be the focus that the 10 merit minimum should be increased. This way a respectable member can merit a respectable post without accidentally giving this power to an alt when they are found out in the future.

[nutildah]

Young man, you need to wash your filthy mouth out with soap this instant!

I didn't expect this sort of reaction from anybody TBH but now that you have I will try to understand why.

I wouldn't be surprised if suchmoon and LoyceV provided at least _some_ of the merits, as they have with a lot of the active members of this forum.

OK well lets look at it.

Merit Fans of cryptohunter
stingers
jpcfan
dbshck
LoyceV
bones261
suchmoon
vlom
DarkStar_
mOgliE
OgNasty

Merit Fans of The-One-Above-All
suchmoon
LoyceV
Quickseller
FruitsBasket
Royse777
Bitlover10
DireWolfM14
LFC_Bitcoin
SaltySpitoon
Dabs

Merit Fans of truth or dare
Royse777
ibminer
Vispilio
o_e_l_e_o
PrimeNumber7
wwzsocki
Vod

OK, there's all the names of merit providers for you. Certainly nobody told cryptohunter to collude his alts together to manipulate DT. So what was your point exactly?

That's great and I agree. You can't deny that posting names of a large bunch of us that are labelled as "on the other side" is a good way to get this across.

I posted ALL the names of people included in 2 or more trust lists. If _you_ want to make that label for them, that's up to you.

[hacker1001101001]

Voting with alts should not be allowed. At the very least users who want to have trust lists on their alt accounts should ask theymos to have those accounts to be blacklisted from voting. The trust system allows you to vote for each DT1 candidate once. Bypassing that restriction with multiple accounts is not acceptable regardless of how you feel about the person bringing this up.

Until it's proven to be alt (ex. with IP connections), I don't think theymos would act on it. And it's even logical to shoot the messenger as he explicitly mentions the names of the user's he distrusts or doesn't like ! Inspite of knowing they have no control over others trust lists. Not including your name and counting it at minimum 2 inclusions to avoid it in the list makes it a bit tricky.

[suchmoon]

If you weren't just a basic bitch nutildah you'd actually dig in further and see who provided the 10 merit needed to enable CH/TOAA/ToD to be able to have a meaningful vote. Chop chop bud. Probably a few names that you'd be a little bit more scared to make a post about.. I can see why you chose this route.

That's great and I agree. You can't deny that posting names of a large bunch of us that are labelled as "on the other side" is a good way to get this across. What I'm saying without throwing mud at nutildah is that merit is too freely given (even though some of their early posts are meritable) which should be the focus that the 10 merit minimum should be increased. This way a respectable member can merit a respectable post without accidentally giving this power to an alt when they are found out in the future.

This has nothing to do with merit senders. If a sockpuppet makes a good post it should be merited and the merit senders shouldn't be obligated to worry what the voting power is and whether it's an alt and whether that person will decide to misuse the trust system at some point later. And even if you increase the requirement to 50 it would still allow cryptohunter to vote at least twice.

Until it's proven to be alt (ex. with IP connections), I don't think theymos would act on it. And it's even logical to shoot the messenger as he explicitly mentions the names of the user's he distrusts or doesn't like ! Inspite of knowing they have no control over others trust lists. Not including your name and counting it at minimum 2 inclusions to avoid it in the list makes it a bit tricky.

What the fuck are you babbling about... logical to shoot the messenger? Fuck no. Pull your head out of your ass.

[hacker1001101001]

What the fuck are you babbling about... logical to shoot the messenger? Fuck no. Pull your head out of your ass.

Babbling about some hidden motives of the OP behind this thread. Take it as it suits you.

[suchmoon]

What the fuck are you babbling about... logical to shoot the messenger? Fuck no. Pull your head out of your ass.

Babbling about some hidden motives of the OP behind this thread. Take it as it suits you.

Well, then maybe start a separate thread to whine about OP's motives, which I'm sure are horrible and involve hollowed-out volcanoes and world domination.

And yet, despite said horrible motives, I still think that sockpuppets found out to be abusing the vote limits should be blacklisted from voting.

[nutildah]

And it's even logical to shoot the messenger as he explicitly mentions the names of the user's he distrusts or doesn't like !

It's a list of _everybody_ that was included by 2 or more of cryptohunter's alts. Some of them I _do_ trust or _do_ like. So you're just straight up lying here. Please try to be more careful with your words next time.

Inspite of knowing they have no control over others trust lists.

I specifically mentioned that already.

Not including your name and counting it at minimum 2 inclusions to avoid it in the list makes it a bit tricky.

This just makes no sense.

Babbling about some hidden motives of the OP behind this thread. Take it as it suits you.

Such as....? Please do enlighten us.

Well, then maybe start a separate thread to whine about OP's motives, which I'm sure are horrible and involve hollowed-out volcanoes and world domination.

[DireWolfM14]

[bonesjonesreturns]

I would like to see the irrefutable and conclusive proof both are the same person posting.

I see motivation that both members clearly demonstrated nutildah was a scam facilitator for pay who tried to delete the evidences? Is this the proof you have?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

The trust lists appear to be contradicting for some members lol

Nutildah the willing scam facilitator seems worried that both doesn't like his scam facilitating for pay though.

[LoyceV]

Seeing how theymos blacklisted this farm I think blacklisting cryptohunter's alts would make sense too.

Agreed. May I suggest to move this topic to Meta, and slightly change the title to make it more obvious the problem is with voting sockpuppets?

I have very balanced Trust from ch:

Trust list for: LoyceV (Trust: +27 / =2 / -0) (5100 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-04-04_Sat_09.19h)
Back to index

LoyceV's judgement is Trusted by:
190. The-One-Above-All (Trust: #  +0 / =0 / -12) (56 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

~LoyceV's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. cryptohunter (Trust: +1 / =2 / -3) (167 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I wouldn't be surprised if suchmoon and LoyceV provided at least _some_ of the merits, as they have with a lot of the active members of this forum.

Here's a complete overview:

Merit received by cryptohunter (Trust list) from January 24, 2018 until April 03, 2020 (source)
    89. Wed Mar 18 19:22:58 2020: 2 (167) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: 3 separate posts on separate threads deleted - which mods and who reported?
    88. Fri Nov 29 22:06:47 2019: 1 (165) from Danydee (Trust list) (history) for Re: My account (Danydee) is stolen from me
    87. Wed Nov 20 17:50:52 2019: 7 (164) from suchmoon (Trust list) (history) for Re: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
    86. Mon Oct 28 19:51:44 2019: 2 (157) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: Obyte: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
    85. Fri Jun 14 19:11:47 2019: 25 (155) from jpcfan (Trust list) (history) for Re: marlboroza using ""plagiarism"" as weapon to silence critics
    84. Tue Apr  2 21:30:50 2019: 1 (130) from OgNasty (Trust list) (history) for Re: OgNasty bending the truth.
    83. Tue Apr  2 18:00:52 2019: 1 (129) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Some Posts deserve being merited than wasting it on bounty/campaign theead
    82. Tue Apr  2 17:51:04 2019: 1 (128) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Does anyone here make a living off the forums?
    81. Thu Mar 28 08:30:12 2019: 1 (127) from Steamtyme (Trust list) (history) for Re: Reporting Member sandy_is_fine FOR Spamming (Please Ban Her Moderator)
    80. Mon Mar 25 22:06:39 2019: 2 (126) from R-J-F (Trust list) (history) for Re: BitBay OFFICIAL BITBAY Thread Smart Contracts Decentralized Markets Rolling Peg
    79. Tue Mar 19 16:08:38 2019: 1 (124) from fronti (Trust list) (history) for Re: Account banned - Limx Dev - Reason is a one-year-old message
    78. Fri Mar 15 02:18:56 2019: 1 (123) from mikeywith (Trust list) (history) for Re: Zero To Hero in under 4 months. (My Merit Journey).
    77. Fri Mar  8 19:48:18 2019: 1 (122) from HabBear (Trust list) (history) for Re: Analysis -DT Depth 2 view- Score distribution for those that are on a trust list
    76. Mon Mar  4 20:31:53 2019: 1 (121) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Why is META not a SIG SPAM FREE ZONE? surely you want real Enthusiasts opinions?
    75. Mon Mar  4 17:34:44 2019: 1 (120) from LFC_Bitcoin (Trust list) (history) for Re: Why is META not a SIG SPAM FREE ZONE? surely you want real Enthusiasts opinions?
    74. Sun Feb 24 22:13:49 2019: 1 (119) from logfiles (Trust list) (history) for Re: New?
    73. Sun Feb 24 17:28:18 2019: 1 (118) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: New?
    72. Tue Feb 19 11:09:42 2019: 4 (117) from dbshck (Trust list) (history) for Re: Bitcointalk is Dying?
    71. Tue Feb 19 02:51:24 2019: 1 (113) from philipma1957 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Bitcointalk is Dying?
    70. Thu Feb 14 20:58:25 2019: 1 (112) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/5/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    69. Sat Feb  9 22:03:08 2019: 1 (111) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Where did this thread vanish to? was it moved or just nuked for good
    68. Sat Feb  9 14:53:18 2019: 1 (110) from peloso (Trust list) (history) for Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis.
    67. Sat Feb  9 10:13:39 2019: 7 (109) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis.
    66. Sat Feb  9 05:22:06 2019: 1 (102) from HCP (Trust list) (history) for Re: Should projects that knowingly employ proven untrustworthy individuals be viewed
    65. Fri Feb  8 00:28:15 2019: 1 (101) from HCP (Trust list) (history) for Should projects that knowingly employ proven untrustworthy individuals be viewed
    64. Thu Feb  7 06:49:26 2019: 2 (100) from H8bussesNbicycles (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/5/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    63. Thu Feb  7 04:42:43 2019: 3 (98) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/5/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    62. Tue Feb  5 23:07:11 2019: -2 (95) from deMerit (Bitcoin Forum) (history) for deleted post
    61. Tue Feb  5 23:07:10 2019: -10 (97) from deMerit (Bitcoin Forum) (history) for deleted post
    60. Tue Feb  5 14:23:29 2019: 1 (107) from peloso (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/5/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    59. Tue Feb  5 14:21:41 2019: 2 (106) from Bazinga442 (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/5/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    58. Tue Feb  5 04:22:54 2019: 10 (104) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for Re: ▄▀▄ REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ LIST UPDATED 2/2/19 ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄&#960
    57. Mon Feb  4 20:43:20 2019: 1 (94) from Agarthian (Trust list) (history) for Re: This forum is RUn By Satinists for innocents to dance to their tune.
    56. Thu Jan 31 19:42:39 2019: 1 (93) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Merit source application of Coolcryptovator
    55. Thu Jan 31 01:49:54 2019: 1 (92) from otrkid1970 (Trust list) (history) for Re: @theymos It's time to make blacklist for upcoming DT selection.
    54. Wed Jan 30 22:37:16 2019: 1 (91) from Deena (Trust list) (history) for Re: REMOVE LAUDA FROM DT
    53. Tue Jan 22 06:32:51 2019: 1 (90) from naturerock Banned! (history) for Re: Trust Merit Childish bitching, hate this forum
    52. Mon Jan 14 18:30:34 2019: 4 (89) from OgNasty (Trust list) (history) for Re: Some thoughts about the old-new trust system
    51. Fri Jan  4 17:13:17 2019: 1 (85) from vlom (Trust list) (history) for The most IMPORTANT post you will read this MONTH
    50. Thu Jan  3 01:37:00 2019: 1 (84) from Dig Bicks Banned! (Trust list) (history) for Re: Banned and absolutely dont know why
    49. Thu Jan  3 01:07:12 2019: 2 (83) from dbshck (Trust list) (history) for Re: Why i am banned?
    48. Thu Jan  3 00:57:07 2019: 1 (81) from yahoo62278 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Why i am banned?
    47. Wed Jan  2 06:32:16 2019: 1 (80) from r1s2g3 (Trust list) (history) for What defines a HQ post. What defines a LQ post. ? merit - Let us see what people
    46. Thu Dec 27 23:10:15 2018: 5 (79) from BitcoinSupremo (Trust list) (history) for Re: marlboroza using ""plagiarism"" as weapon to silence critics
    45. Tue Dec 25 01:46:16 2018: 1 (74) from actmyname (Trust list) (history) for The most IMPORTANT post you will read this MONTH
    44. Fri Dec 21 05:49:51 2018: 2 (73) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for Re: Flaws In The Merit System.
    43. Fri Dec 21 05:40:42 2018: 5 (71) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for Re: Let us devise a Sensible solution to Copy and Paste situation.
    42. Fri Dec 21 00:57:56 2018: 1 (66) from yahoo62278 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Let us devise a Sensible solution to Copy and Paste situation.
    41. Tue Dec 18 20:30:16 2018: 1 (65) from vlom (Trust list) (history) for Re: cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers
    40. Fri Dec 14 00:23:26 2018: 1 (64) from o_e_l_e_o (Trust list) (history) for Re: Could we stop having ban appeal topics?
    39. Thu Dec 13 14:54:24 2018: 1 (63) from hilariousetc (Trust list) (history) for Re: Could we stop having ban appeal topics?
    38. Tue Dec 11 00:30:35 2018: 2 (62) from AverageGlabella (Trust list) (history) for Re: Vote for new moderators who deserve it. @theymos please take a look.
    37. Sat Dec  8 01:55:57 2018: 1 (60) from Anduck (Trust list) (history) for Re: Legendary account banned
    36. Fri Dec  7 19:47:21 2018: 1 (59) from F2b (Trust list) (history) for Re: Legendary account banned
    35. Fri Nov 23 17:12:56 2018: 2 (58) from m0gliE (Trust list) (history) for Re: Merit against spam: reward spam reporters & punish spammers
    34. Thu Nov 22 18:11:58 2018: 1 (56) from 33bitcoin Banned! (history) for Re: Legendary account banned?
    33. Thu Nov 22 12:57:57 2018: 4 (55) from m0gliE (Trust list) (history) for IS THE MERIT SYSTEM being used correctly by a small clique of individuals here
    32. Wed Nov 21 22:57:02 2018: 1 (51) from digit (Trust list) (history) for Re: [ANN] Blacknet | IBO for BlackCoin | New code | PoS | No ICO
    31. Tue Nov 20 16:50:23 2018: 2 (50) from o_e_l_e_o (Trust list) (history) for Re: kill bitcoin cash, or forget this crypto revolution
    30. Sun Nov 18 01:21:27 2018: 4 (48) from dbshck (Trust list) (history) for Do we need to be more sensible about certain issues here before it goes far?
    29. Sat Nov 17 23:42:38 2018: 1 (44) from bones261 (Trust list) (history) for Do we need to be more sensible about certain issues here before it goes far?
    28. Wed Nov 14 19:31:26 2018: 5 (43) from Jet Cash (Trust list) (history) for Re: Why is Meta growing fast but serious discussion and ivory tower dead?
    27. Tue Nov 13 22:51:02 2018: 1 (38) from digit (Trust list) (history) for Re: [ANN] Blacknet | IBO for BlackCoin | New code | PoS | No ICO
    26. Mon Nov 12 13:42:10 2018: 1 (37) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: Negative rating from The Pharmacist
    25. Sun Nov 11 05:11:04 2018: 5 (36) from DarkStar_ (Trust list) (history) for Re: Negative rating from The Pharmacist
    24. Sat Nov 10 07:41:17 2018: 2 (31) from stingers (Trust list) (history) for IS THE MERIT SYSTEM being used correctly by a small clique of individuals here
    23. Fri Nov  9 23:33:54 2018: 1 (29) from Real_Person (history) for IS THE MERIT SYSTEM being used correctly by a small clique of individuals here
    22. Fri Nov  9 17:24:38 2018: 1 (28) from vlom (Trust list) (history) for IS THE MERIT SYSTEM being used correctly by a small clique of individuals here
    21. Wed Nov  7 05:42:25 2018: 1 (27) from DarkStar_ (Trust list) (history) for Re: Negative rating from The Pharmacist
    20. Sun Oct 14 20:20:42 2018: 1 (26) from xorlogic (history) for Re: [OFFICIAL] [SAFEX] Safe Exchange Coin [website www.safex.io]
    19. Tue Sep  4 05:09:18 2018: 1 (25) from nutildah (Trust list) (history) for Re: Most entertaining person on bitcointalk ?
    18. Mon Jul 23 02:15:27 2018: 1 (24) from vapourminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: Anunymint ban
    17. Sun Jul 22 22:03:16 2018: 1 (23) from vapourminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: Anunymint ban
    16. Sun Jul 22 20:53:45 2018: 1 (22) from vapourminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: Anunymint ban
    15. Sun Jul 22 20:14:52 2018: 1 (21) from Ix (history) for Re: Anunymint ban
    14. Sat Jul 21 16:28:51 2018: 1 (20) from digaran (Trust list) (history) for Re: Anunymint ban
    13. Fri Jun 15 23:20:13 2018: 2 (19) from xfunk (history) for Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
    12. Sun Apr 29 19:51:21 2018: 1 (17) from VonSpass (Trust list) (history) for Re: Crypto Bullion (CBX) >>> rebranding to "bullion" | 2018 Roadmap published
    11. Wed Apr 25 01:59:08 2018: 1 (16) from troleybüs (Trust list) (history) for Re: [ANN][ICO] PolicyPal Network - Future of Insurance for Unbanked and Cryptoassets
    10. Sat Apr  7 13:38:25 2018: 1 (15) from BitcoinHodler (history) for Re: Why Bitcoin will go down 1000 below
     9. Wed Mar 28 17:21:37 2018: 1 (14) from DeathAngel (Trust list) (history) for Re: Reddit Drops Bitcoin Payment Option For 'Gold' Membership
     8. Wed Feb 28 13:39:29 2018: 1 (13) from d@nte Banned! (history) for Which ALTS are the NEXT BIG THING? Add your Valid suggestion here now >>>>> POLL
     7. Thu Feb 22 15:10:44 2018: 1 (12) from bitserve (Trust list) (history) for Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
     6. Tue Feb 20 20:31:19 2018: 3 (11) from vlom (Trust list) (history) for Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
     5. Tue Feb 20 20:13:21 2018: 2 (8) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
     4. Tue Feb 20 19:17:33 2018: 2 (6) from EcuaMobi (Trust list) (history) for Re: BYTEBALL: Totally new consensus algorithm + private untraceable payments
     3. Tue Feb  6 00:18:09 2018: 1 (4) from 8Habits (history) for Re: Suicide due to losses due to investment in virtual currency
     2. Mon Feb  5 19:59:34 2018: 1 (3) from Gaaara (history) for Re: Roadmap VS Quality
     1. Sat Feb  3 04:56:25 2018: 2 (2) from The Pharmacist (Trust list) (history) for Never be herded like sheep by the wolves...... keep your BTC and wait.

Merit received by The-One-Above-All (Trust list) from January 24, 2018 until April 03, 2020 (source)
    30. Sun Jan 12 03:17:02 2020: 1 (56) from DireWolfM14 (Trust list) (history) for DT opinions needed...don't be shy, speak up. NOT concerning ourselves !!!!!!!!!!
    29. Fri Jan 10 08:06:14 2020: 4 (55) from Royse777 (Trust list) (history) for DT opinions needed...don't be shy, speak up. NOT concerning ourselves !!!!!!!!!!
    28. Thu Jan  9 11:36:19 2020: 2 (51) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: Guilty until proven innocent
    27. Wed Jan  8 23:59:24 2020: 1 (49) from qwk (Trust list) (history) for Re: Full List of Corrupted Capwearers & Lauda's Trolls
    26. Sat Jan  4 23:26:10 2020: 2 (48) from OgNasty (Trust list) (history) for Re: OGnasty removing the scam tags from a scammer? if they remove his tags ??
    25. Thu Jan  2 18:32:48 2020: 1 (46) from DireWolfM14 (Trust list) (history) for Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us)
    24. Sat Dec 28 22:23:25 2019: 1 (45) from Steamtyme (Trust list) (history) for Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us)
    23. Thu Dec  5 20:12:25 2019: 2 (44) from cabalism13 (Trust list) (history) for Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us)
    22. Wed Dec  4 17:11:47 2019: 7 (42) from suchmoon (Trust list) (history) for Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us)
    21. Wed Dec  4 13:03:05 2019: 1 (35) from amishmanish (Trust list) (history) for Re: Roobet.com not paying on their mistakes
    20. Tue Nov 26 17:45:46 2019: 5 (34) from FruitsBasket (Trust list) (history) for Re: BAN REQUEST for TMAN cause RACISM and excessive vulgar speaking
    19. Fri Nov 15 15:36:53 2019: 1 (29) from pandukelana2712 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Staff Dabs abusing merit?
    18. Thu Nov 14 17:29:50 2019: 2 (28) from eddie13 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Feedom of speech
    17. Sat Nov  9 05:41:56 2019: 1 (26) from xtraelv (Trust list) (history) for Re: Irony on bitcointalk
    16. Fri Nov  8 01:50:47 2019: 1 (25) from xtraelv (Trust list) (history) for Re: @theymos are Japanese.
    15. Tue Nov  5 10:11:44 2019: 1 (24) from LFC_Bitcoin (Trust list) (history) for Re: Using trust rating for a death threat TMAN, foxpup and lauda.
    14. Fri Nov  1 14:03:30 2019: 2 (23) from aliashraf (Trust list) (history) for Re: Impeachment: Is Greg Maxwell the best choice for being a mod in bitcointalk?
    13. Mon Oct  7 04:20:09 2019: 1 (21) from Dabs (Trust list) (history) for Re: Staff Dabs abusing merit?
    12. Sun Oct  6 01:02:00 2019: 1 (20) from Dabs (Trust list) (history) for Re: Staff Dabs abusing merit?
    11. Sat Oct  5 10:34:53 2019: 1 (19) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: @theymos are Japanese.
    10. Thu Sep  5 18:21:34 2019: 4 (18) from Bitlover10 (Trust list) (history) for Which corrupt moderator deleted our last 4 posts? calling you out in public NOW!
     9. Mon Aug  5 22:17:10 2019: 1 (14) from LFC_Bitcoin (Trust list) (history) for Re: [POLL] The Official Dirty Turds Poll - Which DT needs flushing first ???????????
     8. Fri Jul  5 03:30:48 2019: 1 (13) from Timelord2067 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Shit eaters Lauda and Pharmacist- Ban need to executed on these people
     7. Tue Jun 18 04:59:41 2019: 1 (12) from SaltySpitoon (Trust list) (history) for Re: WHICH flags are appropriate for each scenario listed here???????????????????????
     6. Tue Jun 18 04:52:05 2019: 1 (11) from SaltySpitoon (Trust list) (history) for Re: WHICH flags are appropriate for each scenario listed here???????????????????????
     5. Wed Jun 12 20:25:16 2019: 4 (10) from Quickseller (Trust list) (history) for Bitcoincasino.com and hhampuz allowing trolling and spam? Hhampuz says its okay?
     4. Sat May 11 01:47:26 2019: 1 (6) from Quickseller (Trust list) (history) for Re: LoyceV - robovac. low worth, low achieving, sig spamming fool. - REAL DEBATE.
     3. Fri May 10 17:04:01 2019: 2 (5) from LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for LoyceV - robovac. low worth, low achieving, sig spamming fool. - REAL DEBATE.
     2. Sun Apr 28 06:18:47 2019: 1 (3) from 2girls (Trust list) (history) for Re: Double Standards for Red Trust
     1. Sat Apr 27 21:33:34 2019: 2 (2) from Pamoldar (Trust list) (history) for THEYMOS GIVES NEW MANDATE TO DT MEMBERS - will they take heed??????????????????

Merit received by truth or dare (Trust list) from January 24, 2018 until April 03, 2020 (source)
    10. Fri Feb 21 14:22:24 2020: 1 (14) from PrimeNumber7 (Trust list) (history) for Re: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia
     9. Fri Feb 21 11:24:29 2020: 1 (13) from o_e_l_e_o (Trust list) (history) for Re: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia
     8. Tue Feb 18 11:21:30 2020: 1 (12) from wwzsocki (Trust list) (history) for Re: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator.
     7. Tue Feb 18 07:55:38 2020: 1 (11) from Royse777 (Trust list) (history) for Re: No threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats.
     6. Sun Feb 16 01:22:18 2020: 3 (10) from Royse777 (Trust list) (history) for Re: unfair moderation, TS TOAA and all the cuntyfucks made me do this.
     5. Fri Feb 14 10:13:43 2020: 1 (7) from Vod (Trust list) (history) for Re: Was VOD's account hacked? or has he had some kind of stress related breakdown??
     4. Thu Feb 13 18:15:59 2020: 1 (6) from Vispilio (Trust list) (history) for Re: by rallier
     3. Thu Feb 13 18:13:05 2020: 1 (5) from Vispilio (Trust list) (history) for Re: [Cult of Lauda] An historic peace: Rome’s treaty with Carthage
     2. Tue Feb 11 11:38:25 2020: 2 (4) from ibminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: Remove red trust, it is nothing but noise. Getting sickening to watch.
     1. Tue Feb 11 11:38:13 2020: 2 (2) from ibminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: Remove red trust, it is nothing but noise. Getting sickening to watch.

As for me being a "Merit fan": I couldn't care less :P I have a shitload of Merit to get rid off, it's a continuous "burden" to spend it wisely, and even the biggest troll can have posts sometimes that are worth reading (even if it's just because the post says a lot about the person who posts

[suchmoon]

~

Good to see you alive and well in these difficult times.

[hacker1001101001]

-not funny meme-

Nice attempt to show your support and political side's here, but I never support or said it's an bad idea to stop alt voting or manuplating it that way. Stop pretending.

[bonesjonesreturns]

~

Good to see you alive and well in these difficult times.

This thread lacks conclusive proof.
It is also a thread started by a willing scam facilitator for pay who would delete the evidence. It seems he has clear motivation for wanting to invalidate these very useful members votes that seem to only wish to see scammers like himself and his friends removed from DT.

Even were there theories correct that both are the same person which seems unlikely.

It clearly demonstrate the willful stupidity of conflating meaningless merit with trust.

I think there is clearer evidences nutildah is an alt of another DT and they are manipulating the trust system

Their account was for sale for 6 months
The original nutildah was a nem stake holder and early dash adopter (should be wealthy extremely)
The old nutildah said he never wanted to use sigs to milk money from the forum
The new nutildah is begging for 0.02 btc loans
The new nutildah is spamming sign

To me this member is simply upset that 2 useful members have outed the willing scam facilitating evidence deleting tiny loan beggar who is likely an alt

Nutildah is undeniably either

A willing scam facilitator or a liar

This is undeniable.

There is nothing other than this nutildah crying about being outed as a peasant scammer facilitator for pay by other useful and unblemished members of great repute.

There is no conclusive proof of these being the same person

There is clear evidence nutildah is a scammer facilitator and dirty bitch
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

[marlboroza]

Now look what you did nutildah, you triggered the troll. Now troll will spam the hell out of meta and reputation, I am glad that I don't see their posts but I feel sorry for people that do  

You can see all 3 of these members have been updating their respective trust lists relatively recently, with cryptohunter updating his list just this week

Well, theymos said 2/3 are alt accounts and as they are using alts to maliciously vote they should all be blacklisted.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Now look what you did nutildah, you triggered the troll. Now troll will spam the hell out of meta and reputation, I am glad that I don't see their posts but I feel sorry for people that do  

You can see all 3 of these members have been updating their respective trust lists relatively recently, with cryptohunter updating his list just this week

Well, theymos said 2/3 are alt accounts and as they are using alts to maliciously vote they should all be blacklisted.

You must have incontrovertible proof? Please provide it zorrobeck

I hope you can provide the video evidence that you said was the only evidence you malboroza would accept when quickseller stated that was your alt?

If theymos is going to start moderating bogus claims of abuse of the trust system based on zero proof then he will be called daily to answer why he is not moderating credible claims of scammers and their pals on DT1 based on irrefutable proof

Can't wait.

Funny to see a willing scam facilitator for pay crying for help from admin and his scammer supporting cronies.
Please theymos cries the probable alt nutildah or willing scam facilitator for pay. Please stop people i claim are alts removing scammers like me from the trust system.
Comedy gold.

I will quiz theymos on his actions and if he investigated nutildah is an alt. Based on historical evidences.

[Lauda]

Voting with alts should not be allowed. At the very least users who want to have trust lists on their alt accounts should ask theymos to have those accounts to be blacklisted from voting. The trust system allows you to vote for each DT1 candidate once. Bypassing that restriction with multiple accounts is not acceptable regardless of how you feel about the person bringing this up.

This would be a beneficial improvement. I wonder why it is not the case.

[DireWolfM14]

Their account was for sale for 6 months
The original nutildah was a nem stake holder and early dash adopter (should be wealthy extremely)
The old nutildah said he never wanted to use sigs to milk money from the forum
The new nutildah is begging for 0.02 btc loans
The new nutildah is spamming sign

Are you making an allegation that nutildah did sell his account back in September of 2016, or the months following?

I would like to see the irrefutable and conclusive proof...

Hypocritical much?

Assuming you are correct, and lets for the sake of argument say that you are indeed correct (i.e. the person currently in control of the nutildah account is not the same person who was originally,) what scams has this current biological nutildah facilitated?  Your foaming at the mouth, spreading this narrative that nutlidah is a scam facilitator, but wouldn't that only apply to the person who sold the account?  Apparently the person currently in control of the account is innocent of facilitating any scams.

Pretty simple logic, no?  

[TECSHARE]

Why aren't you stopping the goats from being raped Direpup? Why do you not do things I think are important and instead do things you think are important? All Nutilduhhh does is attack, but poor poor baby! You two should just share your goat already.

I wonder why we never see this kind of selective "analysis" on the merit cycling DT members. That's not abuse right? Nope, just a bunch of dudes hanging around blowing each other, perfectly within the rules. It is only abuse when your new butt buddies don't like it, when they do anything they complain about it is perfectly acceptable.

[marlboroza]

Voting with alts should not be allowed. At the very least users who want to have trust lists on their alt accounts should ask theymos to have those accounts to be blacklisted from voting. The trust system allows you to vote for each DT1 candidate once. Bypassing that restriction with multiple accounts is not acceptable regardless of how you feel about the person bringing this up.

This would be a beneficial improvement. I wonder why it is not the case.

Theymos said:

However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

I would call this obvious abuse...hm, is there any info on blacklisted users? Maybe CH is already blacklisted and doesn't really vote 

[bonesjonesreturns]

Their account was for sale for 6 months
The original nutildah was a nem stake holder and early dash adopter (should be wealthy extremely)
The old nutildah said he never wanted to use sigs to milk money from the forum
The new nutildah is begging for 0.02 btc loans
The new nutildah is spamming sign

Are you making an allegation that nutildah did sell his account back in September of 2016, or the months following?

I would like to see the irrefutable and conclusive proof...

Hypocritical much?

Assuming you are correct, and lets for the sake of argument say that you are indeed correct (i.e. the person currently in control of the nutildah account is not the same person who was originally,) what scams has this current biological nutildah facilitated?  Your foaming at the mouth, spreading this narrative that nutlidah is a scam facilitator, but wouldn't that only apply to the person who sold the account?  Apparently the person currently in control of the account is innocent of facilitating any scams.

Pretty simple logic, no?  

Poor imbecile

Either a scam facilitator or liar

There are only two possible outcomes poor fool.

He offered for sale
He sold or he didn't sell.

Let him choose.

He claims he is the original. He may have sold it to himself in a confused tman auction scamming ploy that went wrong lol

Poor direwolf tries to be a good little scammer supporter but gets wrecked every time

Let him choose

Read the referenced thread...oh you did and tried to make excuse there for your dirty mate. But got owned again. Whoops.
Then run away like usual
Dire logic

One must wonder why direwolf is pushing a point that has been pointed out to him personally but another poster previously who he claims is myself hehehe

I was apparently I who explained this to him before on the other thread but now he can explain it back to me like I never told him.
Maybe he think im a different person? Silly bitch

[TECSHARE]

Hypocritical much?

Assuming you are correct, and lets for the sake of argument say that you are indeed correct (i.e. the person currently in control of the nutildah account is not the same person who was originally,) what scams has this current biological nutildah facilitated?  Your foaming at the mouth, spreading this narrative that nutlidah is a scam facilitator, but wouldn't that only apply to the person who sold the account?  Apparently the person currently in control of the account is innocent of facilitating any scams.

Pretty simple logic, no? 

Buying an account is cheating, plain and simple.  It's no different than buying or forging a college degree, in my opinion.  You can argue that bill has been a contributing member of the community, and makes decent, articulate posts, but it was rooted in deception. 

If it wasn't intended to deceive the community why wouldn't he have disclosed that he had purchased the account right from the start?  Why didn't he just start with a fresh account?  The answer is likely to qualify for sig and bounty campaigns in which his other account was no longer welcome.

Interesting how your analysis changes depending on who it serves.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Seems direwolfs defence of this is that

Nutildah is a proven liar and imposter that gets him off being a willing scam facilitator for pay?

Is that your defence direwolf lol? What about you other failed defence in the nutildah willing scam facilitator thread?? Given up on that one?

Perhaps we need a nutildah a liar and imposter? Thread??

Which one is he direwolf because he has to be one.

This seems to be his motivation forthese wild speculative fantasies that he says are colluding to remove scammers like him from the trust system??

Admin not allowed to remove proven scammers from dt1

Admin must stop members voting scammers off DT1 based on speculation of scammers.

[DireWolfM14]

Interesting how your analysis changes depending on apples and oranges.

FIFY.

[TECSHARE]

Hypocritical much?

Assuming you are correct, and lets for the sake of argument say that you are indeed correct (i.e. the person currently in control of the nutildah account is not the same person who was originally,) what scams has this current biological nutildah facilitated?  Your foaming at the mouth, spreading this narrative that nutlidah is a scam facilitator, but wouldn't that only apply to the person who sold the account?  Apparently the person currently in control of the account is innocent of facilitating any scams.

Pretty simple logic, no? 

Buying an account is cheating, plain and simple.  It's no different than buying or forging a college degree, in my opinion.  You can argue that bill has been a contributing member of the community, and makes decent, articulate posts, but it was rooted in deception. 

If it wasn't intended to deceive the community why wouldn't he have disclosed that he had purchased the account right from the start?  Why didn't he just start with a fresh account?  The answer is likely to qualify for sig and bounty campaigns in which his other account was no longer welcome.

Interesting how your analysis changes depending on who it serves.

Interesting how your analysis changes depending on apples and oranges.

FIFY.

Apples = Your butt buddies
Oranges = Targets of your butt buddies

[suchmoon]

I wonder why we never see this kind of selective "analysis" on the merit cycling DT members. That's not abuse right? Nope, just a bunch of dudes hanging around blowing each other, perfectly within the rules. It is only abuse when your new butt buddies don't like it, when they do anything they complain about it is perfectly acceptable.

Which of the "merit cycling DT members" used their alts in DT1 voting? It sounds like very lame attempt at whataboutism unless you can show an actual example.

[TECSHARE]

I wonder why we never see this kind of selective "analysis" on the merit cycling DT members. That's not abuse right? Nope, just a bunch of dudes hanging around blowing each other, perfectly within the rules. It is only abuse when your new butt buddies don't like it, when they do anything they complain about it is perfectly acceptable.

Which of the "merit cycling DT members" used their alts in DT1 voting? It sounds like very lame attempt at whataboutism unless you can show an actual example.

Please put the use of the word "alts" in my quote in bold. Thank you.

[suchmoon]

Please put the use of the word "alts" in my quote in bold. Thank you.

Oh, it's one of your "guess what I mean but whatever you guess is wrong" games. So "when they do anything they complain about" doesn't actually mean that "they" use alts in DT voting, it means something else. As I said, a lame attempt at whataboutism and predictably off topic too.

[TECSHARE]

Please put the use of the word "alts" in my quote in bold. Thank you.

Oh, it's one of your "guess what I mean but whatever you guess is wrong" games. So "when they do anything they complain about" doesn't actually mean that "they" use alts in DT voting, it means something else. As I said, a lame attempt at whataboutism and predictably off topic too.

No, its one of those "I am not going to defend things I didn't even say and you inserted" games.

[PrimeNumber7]

Young man, you need to wash your filthy mouth out with soap this instant!

I didn't expect this sort of reaction from anybody TBH but now that you have I will try to understand why.

I wouldn't be surprised if suchmoon and LoyceV provided at least _some_ of the merits, as they have with a lot of the active members of this forum.

OK well lets look at it.

<>Merit Fans of truth or dare
<>
PrimeNumber7
<>

I am not a "merit fan" (an ambiguous term) of truth or date, I gave him a single merit for a post he made that I believed was objectivly high quality. This was and will continue to be the sole factor (above my having available merit and reading the post) in my decision to merit a post. I would appreciate it if you kept my name out of your drama, thanks.
In addition to the lack of solid evidence that TOD is CH, you really cannot realistically detect every instance of what you are describing. Someone could make several posts that deserve and receive merit and add some people to their trust lists that have less than perfect intentions, and add in other people.

You are also overstating the problem. TOD can cask exactly one vote in DT1 selection voting. TOAA can cast 5 votes. Not everyone on either trust list will receive a vote from each of them. It is probable that CH actually trusts the judgment of those on his trust list and is happy with his trust network, and as a result, uses the ~same trust network for both of his accounts. I would limit concerns to those not involved in more egregious abuse.

[nutildah]

Babbling about some hidden motives of the OP behind this thread. Take it as it suits you.

Still waiting on your explanation of what my hidden motives are.

I would appreciate it if you kept my name out of your drama, thanks.

You came up on a list as requested by teeGUMES. These are the top 10 members who have merited each respective alt account, taken straight from BPIP. And if such a request is made in the future, I'm not going to censor your name just because you asked me to.

In addition to the lack of solid evidence that TOD is CH, you really cannot realistically detect every instance of what you are describing. Someone could make several posts that deserve and receive merit and add some people to their trust lists that have less than perfect intentions, and add in other people.

Everyone with half a brain who has been around here long enough and is capable of speaking honestly knows those are alts of cryptohunter, just like they know you are Quickseller.

You are also overstating the problem. TOD can cask exactly one vote in DT1 selection voting. TOAA can cast 5 votes. Not everyone on either trust list will receive a vote from each of them. It is probable that CH actually trusts the judgment of those on his trust list and is happy with his trust network, and as a result, uses the ~same trust network for both of his accounts. I would limit concerns to those not involved in more egregious abuse.

Thanks for pointing out and quantifying that it is a problem, and for your opinion on the matter. Duly noted.

[Vod]

That's great and I agree. You can't deny that posting names of a large bunch of us that are labelled as "on the other side" is a good way to get this across.

I agree with this too, but you trust people who regularly post lists of people to blindly trust or distrust with no original thought.  If you believe what you post (and I hope you do) then you shouldn't call it out only when certain people do it.  

one of those "I am not going to defend things I didn't even say and you inserted" games.

You passed out last night before you answered how you knew this virus was a planned attack.  :/ 

[nutildah]

Now look what you did nutildah, you triggered the troll. Now troll will spam the hell out of meta and reputation, I am glad that I don't see their posts but I feel sorry for people that do  

That's a risk that had to be taken. I couldn't ignore this issue over fear of being shit talked in a dozen different threads.

I promptly put bjr on ignore, as I did with his other accounts.

[TECSHARE]

Now look what you did nutildah, you triggered the troll. Now troll will spam the hell out of meta and reputation, I am glad that I don't see their posts but I feel sorry for people that do  

That's a risk that had to be taken. I couldn't ignore this issue over fear of being shit talked in a dozen different threads.

I promptly put bjr on ignore, as I did with his other accounts.

Stunning and brave in the face of such an insurmountable threat.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Babbling about some hidden motives of the OP behind this thread. Take it as it suits you.

Still waiting on your explanation of what my hidden motives are.

I would appreciate it if you kept my name out of your drama, thanks.

You came up on a list as requested by teeGUMES. These are the top 10 members who have merited each respective alt account, taken straight from BPIP. And if such a request is made in the future, I'm not going to censor your name just because you asked me to.

In addition to the lack of solid evidence that TOD is CH, you really cannot realistically detect every instance of what you are describing. Someone could make several posts that deserve and receive merit and add some people to their trust lists that have less than perfect intentions, and add in other people.

Everyone with half a brain who has been around here long enough and is capable of speaking honestly knows those are alts of cryptohunter, just like they know you are Quickseller.

You are also overstating the problem. TOD can cask exactly one vote in DT1 selection voting. TOAA can cast 5 votes. Not everyone on either trust list will receive a vote from each of them. It is probable that CH actually trusts the judgment of those on his trust list and is happy with his trust network, and as a result, uses the ~same trust network for both of his accounts. I would limit concerns to those not involved in more egregious abuse.

Thanks for pointing out and quantifying that it is a problem, and for your opinion on the matter. Duly noted.

Lots of allegations  with zero proof.

Proof. Nutildah like the clear undeniable evidence you are either

An imposter and lair that tries to delete the evidence

Or

A willing scam facilitator for pay who tries to delete the evidence.

Claiming someone is an alt with no conclusive proof and just saying " people know"laugable.
Now produce irrefutable proof to substantiate your claims.
There is no proof is there?


Is the truth that you are upset many members have noticed your are a dangerous and dirty piece of peasant trash lurking in some dump upset you? Their warning other members and producing irrefutable proof of this is making you sad?

Please stop obsessing over these prior useful members that felt the need top earn others about you and your willing scam facilitating.

Or maybe you wish to refute this? I wil indulge you. Come on peasant scam facilitator for pay,  explain your way out of it.

Stop speculating, dreaming, hoping and guessing about why other members don't want scammers like you on default trust1.
Everyone with a brain knows they can't defend your willing scam facilitating for pay ways. The fact only direwolf has attempted to do so is strong support for that assertion.

No proof of alts. Malboroza and zorrobeck agree.

Shit talked = irrefutable evidence of being dirty piece of shit ...says nutildah.

[nutildah]

Seeing how theymos blacklisted this farm I think blacklisting cryptohunter's alts would make sense too.

Agreed. May I suggest to move this topic to Meta, and slightly change the title to make it more obvious the problem is with voting sockpuppets?

OK, done.

If he's not terribly busy, I would like to get the opinion of @theymos on this issue.

Feel free to also add any other alt accounts that you feel may be attempting to game the trust system like the blacklisted farm started by ac2eugenio.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Seeing how theymos blacklisted this farm I think blacklisting cryptohunter's alts would make sense too.

Agreed. May I suggest to move this topic to Meta, and slightly change the title to make it more obvious the problem is with voting sockpuppets?

OK, done.

If he's not terribly busy, I would like to get the opinion of @theymos on this issue.

Feel free to also add any other alt accounts that you feel may be attempting to game the trust system like the blacklisted farm started by ac2eugenio.

I think if theymos has time to give "opinions" on your wild and incorrect speculation of possible alts that have conflicting trust includes that are apparently colluding at the request of a proven willing scam facilitator who has a vested interest and clear motivation for creating such wild and incorrect theories.

He will certainly have lots of time to give a statement and take action on the facts that are contained here regarding scammers and wlling scammers and scam facilitators being on dt

Theymos should spend time evaluating objective irrefutable evidence that demonstrates some very scammy people are infesting positios of trust and pose a direct threat to the forum

Theymos should not be pandering to scammers requests to silence whistleblowers based on speculative crap scammers make up.

Imagine honest blemish free members wishing to see scammers removed from defsult trust 1.
That does not guarantee they are the same person.

I also note there is no shared cycled merit like there are between the scammy dt1 gang... that is the real abuse of the system.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0


I think i said it best here

"I see a willing scam facilitator screaming for admin intervention based on bogus unproven speculation.
The intervention required is blacklist speculated alts from voting to remove scammers like himself?

So admins can intervene to blacklist speculated unproven alts from voting to remove scammers

But

Admins must not intervene to remove proven scammers like himself based on irrefutable evidence
As the anti trust system it's brilliant.
Designed specifically to tilt the favor to scammers but only those that scam the merit Staten the hardest first
Excellent logic.
Come and offer explanation that is not shredded "


Get these scamming sig spamming self serving scum off dt1 ffs.

Stop protecting and designing systems these undeniably dirty and scammy  peasant scumbags game and manipulate straight away.
Having proven scammers and willing scam facilitators for pay on default trust1 makes a mockery of the entire forum.