REVOLUTION of bitcointalk.org V

[Lauda]

Case Exhibition 1:

Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns?

Case Exhibition 2: Maybe it is time to revive Vlad for some impaling.

Case Exhibition 3:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5246495.20

You can get into DT for all you like, but forget about real signature campaigns.

So all this for sig campaigns? WTF?
You're more of a Don Quijote than Vendetta in this case!
Feel a bit sad to find out it's really about feedback and the benjamins.. ffs

He is just a sad third world pajeet. No revolution. Nothing. Just petty greed and dumbass nationalism. That is all.

[1715169599]

1715169599

[1715169599]

1715169599

[1715169599]

1715169599

[wolwoo]

Loycev
LoyceV's choices were interesting 11 in 19 %57 mutual trust addition rate
1. dooglus
2. gmaxwell
3. Vod
4. SaltySpitoon
5. mprep
6. philipma1957
7. Cyrus
8. Stunna
9. guitarplinker
10. NLNico
11. Blazed
12. hilariousandco
13. cryptodevil
14. suchmoon
15. RHavar
16. The Pharmacist
17. DarkStar_
18. marlboroza
19. coinlocket$

If you drag me into your drama, at least make sure the data you're presenting is correct. I worked hard on adding BBCode for Bitcointalk on each page of my Trust list viewer. Use it, so you don't make silly mistakes in your color coding:

Trust list for: LoyceV (Trust: +29 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (59) 5259 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-05-09_Sat_05.05h)
Back to index

LoyceV Trusts these users' judgement:
1. dooglus (Trust: +16 / =0 / -0) (217 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. gmaxwell (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (22) 2611 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. Vod (Trust: +28 / =3 / -4) (DT1! (17) 1533 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. SaltySpitoon (Trust: +23 / =1 / -1) (1091 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. mprep (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (610 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. philipma1957 (Trust: +23 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (20) 1305 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. Cyrus (Trust: +12 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (23) 166 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Stunna (Trust: +27 / =0 / -0) (154 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. guitarplinker (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (6 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. NLNico (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (260 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. Blazed (Trust: +60 / =1 / -0) (119 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. hilariousandco (Trust: +19 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (40) 781 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. cryptodevil (Trust: +9 / =0 / -1) (183 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (37) 4112 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. RHavar (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (580 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. The Pharmacist (Trust: +26 / =2 / -0) (2493 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. DarkStar_ (Trust: +50 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (33) 1333 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
18. marlboroza (Trust: +13 / =1 / -0) (1480 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
19. coinlocket$ (Trust: +10 / =0 / -0) (1219 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backscratchers: users agree, they trust or distrust each other.

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

I count 42% (8 out of 19) Trust list backscratchers.

you should be able to speak without insulting
I don't know what these codes mean
I looked manually from your page to the last situation http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-09_Sat_05.05h/459836.html

You can get into DT for all you like, but forget about real signature campaigns.

wooaa I heard there was 2 free places in chipmixer  

don't worry i will not apply

[Lauda]

wooaa I heard there was 2 free places in chipmixer  

don't worry i will not apply

Solved. Thanks for the heads up:

Make sure that no applicant is part of the Turkish baboons. Reference link here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247155.msg54398212#msg54398212. I'll pay close attention to the choices.

[wolwoo]

wooaa I heard there was 2 free places in chipmixer  

don't worry i will not apply

Solved. Thanks for the heads up:

Make sure that no applicant is part of the Turkish baboons. Reference link here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247155.msg54398212#msg54398212. I'll pay close attention to the choices.

you can't scare me with bounty
Also, there is Darkstar in chipmixer, as far as I know, will you make the decision?

[Lauda]

you can't scare me with bounty
Also, there is Darkstar in chipmixer, as far as I know, will you make the decision?

How did the monkey mr. Kalemdar get kicked out?

[Shimmiry]

He is just a sad third world pajeet. No revolution. Nothing. Just petty greed and dumbass nationalism. That is all.

Indeed. I don't see any firm and solid arguments and proofs with those arguments. Though he may have a point that trust can be abused by a group or "gang" in here, yet he cannot justify his statements with valid evidences. The revolution attracted many attention, but no one's affirmation.

And the bottom line here is, the trust system is already perfect. It simply shows that if you are worthy of someone's trust, then you must be also trusted by the others. It's just a matter of one's morality if he would cheat in it. And a dumb and immature mindset if one could not accept the fact that there would always be a hierarchy in anything in this world, from government, to a simple household. OP shows mere impertinence, and a person whom couldn't comprehend and accept that one must work hard to reach the top. No wonder why a red-tagged user wanted to have a revolution.

One thing I've learned in my experience, if you wanted to change the system, work hard, climb up top, then change it from within. Not forcing yourself to be heard and be followed.

[suchmoon]

Looks like, wolwoo is just trying to make users aware about using trust list to participate more around the activities here, and that is what most of the other prominent members are promoting right from the creation of the new DT system. Make your own custom Trust list !

Looks like you can't read:

Add me to your trust list and I'll add you
Give me feedback and I'll give you

He said the same in the Turkish thread and even there some users didn't quite agree with that. How dumb do you have to be to defend this sort of thing?

Anyway, if I add 3-5 multiple accounts to the trust list, the rates will be almost the same or add those that are in higher positions. non-mutual trustlist like this

Ignoring the fact that you have no clue how percentages work, the problem is your reciprocal offer, as quoted above. You're a DT1 member and you're literally saying that you will include anyone who includes you (the second part about feedback doesn't quite apply as long as your DT1 membership is inactive and I hope it stays that way). So you end up supporting other trust abusers like peloso, and farming up your own inclusions.

[wolwoo]

Ignoring the fact that you have no clue how percentages work, the problem is your reciprocal offer, as quoted above. You're a DT1 member and you're literally saying that you will include anyone who includes you (the second part about feedback doesn't quite apply as long as your DT1 membership is inactive and I hope it stays that way). So you end up supporting other trust abusers like peloso, and farming up your own inclusions.

Yes because this system is unfair, everyone adds to the list mutually

And after some time, out of nowhere he suddenly ends the entire topic with love-related words. For example:

He ended to penultimate war with:
"i love forum
I love people
goodbye"

i love forum
ı love people
goodbye

[actmyname]

Yes because this system is unfair, everyone adds to the list mutually

Unfortunately, the conclusion results in the trite observation: if everyone is trusted, nobody is trusted.

If we're doing this in the scope of the entire sample then I don't see the use of individualizing trust. One important thing to note is that the idea of a grouping of individuals in DT1 is inevitable and can always be construed regardless of the distribution of trust and distrust throughout the system.

Any time there is mutual trust, one could claim (without any astoundingly explicable reason, mind) that there is a conspiracy, a gang, et al. To forgo sensibilities and leap towards asinine "revolutions" in a privately-owned forum with administrators is to have a childlike fit the likes of the Reputation board.

[wolwoo]

Yes because this system is unfair, everyone adds to the list mutually

Unfortunately, the conclusion results in the trite observation: if everyone is trusted, nobody is trusted.

If we're doing this in the scope of the entire sample then I don't see the use of individualizing trust. One important thing to note is that the idea of a grouping of individuals in DT1 is inevitable and can always be construed regardless of the distribution of trust and distrust throughout the system.

Any time there is mutual trust, one could claim (without any astoundingly explicable reason, mind) that there is a conspiracy, a gang, et al. To forgo sensibilities and leap towards asinine "revolutions" in a privately-owned forum with administrators is to have a childlike fit the likes of the Reputation board.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247453.0

the childlike trust system itself
"I trust this"
"I don't trust this"
"Who are you and how much do you know me?" I said this publicly

[suchmoon]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247453.0

the childlike trust system itself
"I trust this"
"I don't trust this"
"Who are you and how much do you know me?" I said this publicly

If you ever spent a few minutes reading stuff instead of spewing whatever comes to your mind you might learn awesome things. For example you might find out that the thread you linked to was a misunderstanding at most, which has been resolved and there was no conspiracy.

But where's the fun in that.

[actmyname]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247453.0

the childlike trust system itself
"I trust this"
"I don't trust this"
"Who are you and how much do you know me?" I said this publicly

How did you come to the conclusion that the most reasonable and accessible resolution was not to address the members that you believe are dismantling the trust system, but rather to double down on your oppression olympics and try to reduce the system itself to dust?

Anarchy is totally fine - you can go to forums that don't have usernames for that.

[suchmoon]

How did you come to the conclusion that the most reasonable and accessible resolution was not to address the members that you believe are dismantling the trust system, but rather to double down on your oppression olympics and try to reduce the system itself to dust?

See the problem is that the dismantling members turned out to be wolwoo, Vispilio, et al, and they're deservedly excluded, at least for now. You can't expect them to reflect on that like adults, so scorched earth it is.

Yes, I know you didn't ask for my opinion but when has that ever stopped me...

[wolwoo]

I say with the simplest logic
You accuse me of abuse of this system, but one of the users of the system is me
How do you know and trust the people you trust in this virtual environment when you can't even recognize them in real life?
Perhaps the person you trust most is the murderer, thief, pervert. The person you don't trust is perhaps a very good person.

[suchmoon]

Perhaps the person you trust most is the murderer, thief, pervert. The person you don't trust is perhaps a very good person.

Perhaps we're all in a matrix. What does this have to do with your trust farming?

[wolwoo]

Perhaps the person you trust most is the murderer, thief, pervert. The person you don't trust is perhaps a very good person.

Perhaps we're all in a matrix. What does this have to do with your trust farming?

Very simple! Your (and me-others) judgments don't matter. Because unproven judgments without foundation ...
The decisions made according to these judgments are not fair. It is also used purely for personal-group interest. Anyone with an eye can see this.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Yes because this system is unfair, everyone adds to the list mutually

Unfortunately, the conclusion results in the trite observation: if everyone is trusted, nobody is trusted.

If we're doing this in the scope of the entire sample then I don't see the use of individualizing trust. One important thing to note is that the idea of a grouping of individuals in DT1 is inevitable and can always be construed regardless of the distribution of trust and distrust throughout the system.

Any time there is mutual trust, one could claim (without any astoundingly explicable reason, mind) that there is a conspiracy, a gang, et al. To forgo sensibilities and leap towards asinine "revolutions" in a privately-owned forum with administrators is to have a childlike fit the likes of the Reputation board.

But when most of the current DT are undeniably scammer supporters, then any action to force change should be considered no worse or positive.

I think it better that you all join the objective standards guild.

If everyone who recognized that most of DT is corrupt and scammy were united and organised then positive changes could be enacted quickly.

I support nearly any efforts to oust the current crop of DT leaches.

Join the objective standards guild. It will result in scammers and their supporters being kicked out. The last thing they want is a fair and consistent set of rules they have to work with.

Merit is the real cancer but if you reduce the financial leverage of merit via reducing the financial advantages of having subjectivity in the form of red tags then it will help.

First you need a united core. Then you need a set of goals.

Better though to simply have a set of transparent immutable rules then selection of DT is less important.

The DT members all collude with merits and PMs discussing who should be allowed to include who are crying to theymos to raise the 250 limit.  The tears roll if others start to collude haha

Actmyname is not as bad as most of DT.

LOL at trust farming ...they all send each other merits and include each other
Look at all positive trust they send each other and nothing to do with trade in many cases

I think wolwoo deserves more positive trust than all the other DT supporting scammers.

Yes you should get positive trust for having courage to stand up to scammers in DT and trying to boot them out when all the other spineless wretches say nothing at all.

[wolwoo]

Wolwoo's fake negative feedback made me look into the DT2-member that left him positive feedback. I've excluded him:
~vycl87

He has included several users who shouldn't be on DT (see Trust list for: vycl87 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (570 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-05-09_Sat_05.05h)), and left positive feedback for what looks like nationalism on their local board. I don't think this positive feedback to Trust abusers (not all of the receivers) should be on DT.

See here, the tRu$T j€di of the forum

*He's targeting someone else because he's angry with me (after all I'm already negative)
*Being Turkish is enough to be a target
*Meanwhile, the wall is knitting around me, the wall of fear
** On the dark side of power but it shows different

rebellion

The area we are discussing
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247427.msg54414240#msg54414240

[suchmoon]

*He's targeting someone else because he's angry with me (after all I'm already negative)
*Being Turkish is enough to be a target
*Meanwhile, the wall is knitting around me, the wall of fear
** On the dark side of power but it shows different

Cool story. You forgot to mention bullshit trust ratings you're sending around:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1003533;page=sent

[wolwoo]

Cool story. You forgot to mention bullshit trust ratings you're sending around:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1003533;page=sent

non bullshit, it's mutual! "I cut the tree that breaks my branch" Turkish proverb