Bitcointalk trust system has been destroyed by scammers

[smartcontracts100]

Bitcointalk trust system has been destroyed  by scammers

Read the reputation section : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0

And find more info about the Lauda Gang

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226757.0

You will see how they leave you negative trust without even trading ... guess the reason ...

And what moderators do ...they take their side ...possible they are part of the scam also .

Check other forums and find more info about people you deal with yourself as the bitcointalk trust system is useless now .

[1714861756]

1714861756

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Uh, yeah.  You registered in March of 2020 and have knowledge enough of forum politics to post crap like this (in the wrong section, by the way.  This should be in Meta). 

You're another alt account of an old member who has an old grudge, and you're not putting a new face on any new issues, just rehashing....something.  You linked to an old thread about "Lauda's gang" which really isn't a thing.

Check other forums and find more info about people you deal with yourself as the bitcointalk trust system is useless now .

Check other forums for what?

And what moderators do ...they take their side ...possible they are part of the scam also .

What scam?  Please tell me what scam you're talking about exactly, with references if you've got them.

[TheUltraElite]

Check other forums and find more info about people you deal with yourself as the bitcointalk trust system is useless now .

Nobody is forcing you and your friends to stay here. Feel free to leave and close the door on the way please.

[Upgrade00]

You will see how they leave you negative trust without even trading ... guess the reason ...

Negative feedbacks are not limited to when a user actually trades with the other member, it is a (personal) reflection of a member's trustworthiness and could be based on user behavior and general trade history. Trust flags are used for alleged scam violations.

And what moderators do ...they take their side ...possible they are part of the scam also .

Trust flags and feedbacks are unmoderated, so the mods really do not do anything regarding this.

Check other forums and find more info about people you deal with yourself as the bitcointalk trust system is useless now .

You are welcome to use other forums you find to be better than bitcointalk.

[Jet Cash]

I'm starting to come round to the idea that a mix of trading history and board activity may be a good system, especially for members who have been here fir a few years. The main thing that kills it though is the ability to sell those trusted accounts, and this means you have to approach any trades with caution. One way round this could be a voluntary KYC record for people who want to establish trading trust, but I can't see how that could be monitored.

[hugeblack]

The forum was created for discussions, so trust does not affect or impose restrictions on the number of posts you make, and negative trust does not mean that you are a person with bad posts, so if you use the forum for discussion, you will not care about it.

If you are a seller and proved that you are selling real products, the negative trust will not constitute anything. You can use the forum ecsrow and you will not face a problem.

[LoyceV]

You will see how they leave you negative trust without even trading ...

I know, right? Maybe you can explain your own Trust abuse?

guess the reason ...

Thin-skinned butthurt? Not enough hugs as a kid? Too many hugs as an adult? The other way around? You tell me!

And what moderators do ...they take their side ...

You know feedback isn't moderated, that's why you can spam all the negative feedback you want without trading.

possible they are part of the scam also .

I'd love to see evidence of a scamming moderator!

TL;DR your feedback is irrelevant:

Trust list for: smartcontracts100 (Trust: +0 / =1 / -5) (3 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-09-26_Sat_05.08h)

smartcontracts100's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~smartcontracts100's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. Foxpup (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (8) 1019 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. Timelord2067 (Trust: +9 / =6 / -0) (DT1 (-14) 490 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW mocacinno (Trust: neutral) (1584 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. LoyceV (Trust: +26 / =1 / -0) (5970 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.

[KaneVWE]

I agree that the trust system is a complete joke and very dangerous.

Look at the excuses from those benefitting nicely from the current mess of merit and trust.

1. You've not been here long enough to possess the knowledge you seem to have so that means you must be an elder member ?

Proof? Who cares alts are allowed? No debunking of any of his points.

This excuse from the sneaky and greedy sock puppet racist sig spammer thepharmacist  aka Hugeblackwoman who got busted jumping from one sig to another to get a tiny bit extra rev

Also has stated he does not know if his pal lauda did scam people during an escrow but will protect them anyway out of loyalty
Certainly part of lauda gang.

He and the others have reviewed conclusive proof of scamming but condone and protect it.


2. Please go to another forum.

Lol okay yeah scammers and scammer protectors say don't like our scamming or scammer protecting or trust abuse just leave.

From UltraElite the known pal of scammers and is a scammer protector.


3. The old argument that red trust and flags don't stop you posting or they may say does not effect your free speech.

Whilst it is true they don't stop you posting they can ruin the credibility of what you post and they can also prevent your account from getting paid to post like they certainly want to be. I mean look at the chipmixer spammers just on the few replies you've had more or less telling you the status quo is great and excusing the blatant abuse.

This ability to abuse the trust system for any reason you like crushes free speech and fair trade and services. You whistle blow on scammer DT1 you get your account tagged, your business starts to compete with theirs or their sponsors don't be shocked they find a reason to tag it.

4. loyceV as always presents the most retarded defense and is another scammer supporter and protector.

A/ doesn't prove that your possibly valid objection to being tagged by those you correctly claim are part of a colluding mass of scammer supporting shit stains is trust abuse. I mean there is clear evidence many of these deliberately try to prevent legitmate scammer warnings put of scammers accounts.

B/ even so if someone unfairly uses the broken tagging system to abuse your account then you are not permitted to tag them back?

That's kind of like saying a random maniac attacks you with a broken bottle in the street for no reason so you pick up another broken bottle and fight back. Now you are the bad guy?

Also that analogy is being generous because I would say that their is strong evidence to corroborate what his tags claim about those people. Evidence I have not seen anyone debunk.


The truth here is that even when a person with many years on this forum for which they could find zero financially motivated wrongdoing,  was the largest scam hunter of all time and most effective (bar perhaps 1 or 2 others) whistle blew on one of the worst scammers here who was telling lies about him who then trust abused that honest and brilliant member ... what happened? Yes DT, mods and even the forum administrator took the side of the proven scammer and trust abused and told lies about the honest and brilliant member.

So you will win no support here because they are all pals and are colluding to cream off the best rev streams from the forum.
I don't say the administrator has this motivation but is either too lazy to do his own investigations and listens to those he thinks he can trust or is just always siding with them because he thinks they provide some kind of useful service to the forum by playing whack a mole with non important inconsequential 2 bit scammers ( or those that provide competition to their own sponsors and other ventures )

They don't provide any net postive service and have crushed free speech here and now use his broken systems to scam with impunity.

Sadly one person that could have changed things for the better on the forum has been removed further from having influence.  He recognized lauda and his cronies for what they were and didnt like the merit or trust systems. Sadly he handed full control to theymos now. So since theymos took some time designing these systems he will allow them to ruin any semblance of free speech and for the DT1 to scam with impunity and no consequences it seems.  The motivation is either to see if the systems will ever self heal in a few decades or just being stubborn or just enjoys some of the resulting drama. Who can really know.

So expect no support here in meta. I mean pointing out we need changes to DT to those in DT who benefit from the status quo of DT is I guess going to yield nothing but excuses and bullshit.

If anyone would like independently verifiable evidence that corroborates what I have said then just feel free to ask.

LoyceV btw is also actively helping protect proven scammers and of course spamming chipmixer.

Anyone wearing a sig has an agenda to maintain that sig. Anyone needing a sig is here for money. The need for money or the ever greedy lust for more money corrupts most people.

loyceV is quick to point out your feedback is irrelevant? That is not true. It is clearly relevant and as yet debunked or refuted. How can any feedback pertaining to trust be irrelevant? Whether it is reliable ( the claims are reliable ) or is seen by the mistaken and mislead members here as having much credibility or truth is a possibility. The fault is with the design and abuser of that design. So the point by loyce is again useful to the case of the OP.


TLDR?  the OP is correct and clearly has some valid points regardless of this specific case which I have not investigated.

Yes i believe it is wrong for DT to give red tags unless there is conclusive proof of scamming or strong corroborating evidence to demonstrate there was clear intention to scam or setting up for a scam.
Even the flagging system is abused so the entire thing is a dangerous misleading cluster fuck.

[Little Mouse]

You will see how they leave you negative trust without even trading ... guess the reason ...

Negative feedback doesn't necessarily require a trade. Check what its purpose is-

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

If someone seems to be a scammer (which can be identified by their behavior), there's no problem with tagging them for future reference. Now, if you don't like the system, well, you can still trade here without depending on the feedbacks as there are a lot of trusted escrow services on the forum.

[KaneVWE]

You will see how they leave you negative trust without even trading ... guess the reason ...

Negative feedback doesn't necessarily require a trade. Check what its purpose is-

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

If someone seems to be a scammer (which can be identified by their behavior), there's no problem with tagging them for future reference. Now, if you don't like the system, well, you can still trade here without depending on the feedbacks as there are a lot of trusted escrow services on the forum.

1. That doesn't make it a useful system with regard creating credible and valuable scam warnings. It dilutes and devalues them.

2. " you think" = subjective wide open to abuse lazy design

3. Even where there is stipulation like for flags admin does nothing about abuse.

Some people think that if you report DT1 members prior scamming then that makes you high risk to trade with. Lol
Guess who those people are? DT1 you got it.

Again the trust system like the merit system is a cluster fuck because you can not abuse it.

You can give any reason for saying you think the person is high risk to trade with however ridiculous that is.
Just like you can say you think any post is a good post even when it is 100% undeniably a misleading dangerous shit post.

When you provide financial incentive to abuse systems then leave them wide open to abuse to the point it is impossible to prove abuse ....guess what happens.

I mean unless the intention of the merit and trust systems are mimicking the central banking system and ensuring the forum is as corrupt and unfair as possible then it is broken beyond repair.

Scrap it and merit cancer system. Or tighten it up and force retroactive conformity to the tighter rules.

There is no point mentioning merit or tagging abuse. It is designed to be impossible to prove abuse takes place.

" you think " drinking lemon tea makes you unsafe to trade with then you can give red trust.
" you think"  whistleblowing on scammers makes the whistleblower unsafe to trade with you can give red trust.

Just like " you think " posting debunked false and misleading crap is a good post = you give merit to it 

There is really no way to claim it is abuse. You can ask if it is appropriate and useful to give red trust for and then present the details and invite debate. Then they will just post pictures demanding the debate stops.
The mods allow this to take place.  If you report these pictures demanding the debate stops the mods mark the reports bad.
You can call theymos to debate. He will ignore it or tell you you are boring and that scammers are suboptimal but your account can stay red trusted and have a big warning on all of your threads telling everyone "Yes this members posts and threads are that of a scammer"

Best thing to do is simply hound these trust abusing scum bags and bring up inconvenient on topic and relevant truths about them when you get time and have the inclination. I generally enjoy doing so when they are lecturing and punishing others for things they reward themselves and their pals for on DT1.

[actmyname]

And find more info about the Lauda Gang

"Lauda Gang"

Let me see... now where did Lauda leave a negative on your account?

Ah. That's right... nowhere. In fact, I can't find anything related to Lauda in this situation at all except for your claim that they are relevant. Something something obsession, something something get over it sweetie.

[mikeywith]

The forum gives you all the ability to decide the source/sources of feedback you want to see, but most members here have only the "default trust" group in their trust list, so all in all, none-DT members (The vast majority of the forum members) are the once who give the default trust list value and importance. If you have a better way of dealing with the trust system go ahead and propose it, I am pretty sure it won't be as effective as the one we have now even though it's far from perfect, it's probably the best we can have, and until members learn how to use a customized trust list - nothing will change.

[KaneVWE]

And find more info about the Lauda Gang

"Lauda Gang"

Let me see... now where did Lauda leave a negative on your account?

Ah. That's right... nowhere. In fact, I can't find anything related to Lauda in this situation at all except for your claim that they are relevant. Something something obsession, something something get over it sweetie.

Can you explain why lauda specifically is required to leave any feedback on your own account for you to observe there is a group of colluding DT members that may involve or even revolve around lauda?

Are you disputing his claim or that is is not legitmate for him to even make that claim or that is just not provably relevant to his current gripe?

I am often surprised to see you actmyname falling off of the fence on to the wrong side.
I have yet to ever observe you speak out against lauda or support concerns over the worrying amount of both smoke and raging fire that comes from the putrid account of lauda?.


It didnt take gmax more than 2 minutes to conclude what any objective member would conclude when reviewing just one incident involving the scamming piece of dirt that is lauda?

Yet so many of the same " not laudas gang" all immediately concluded they must oppose a warning on the basis of the identical evidence

I want to believe you play devils advocate rather than the devils pawn.

I know you like and appreciate those you believe are smarter than the average apes here.  That however should not influence your opinions on what is clearly fair and equal treatment of all members. Smart people are not always good people sadly as I'm sure you know.

It is easy to say get over something that does not personally effect you.
It is even easier to say get over something when saying that assists you. ( not that I am claiming that is your motivation)

However, one should at least try to be impartial.

You are smarter than the average lauda gang ape, but even the very smartest people can't disguise a pattern of behavior if repeated too frequently. Better to mix up some small condemnation on both sides where it will stand up to scrutiny. Rushing to defend one group and then condemning and lecturing another group for identical behaviors is not really sensible

What is your opinion on the merit and trust system? Entirely free of abuse and collusion ?  The possibility does not even exist such is the brilliant design?  

No disrespect of course. Just clarification and reasoning is always useful when trying to understand fully a post.


Of course mikey still there ignoring that fact that many improvements have been suggested.
Improvements that nobody could debunk or refute.

Mikey still believes his anecdotal experience of benefiting from the status quo is conclusive proof that no improvements are possible.
Well not for him anyway.
Remember mikey played it very smart. No sigs or signs of being here for sigs until boom straight to chipmixer.

It always comes back to the same thing for excusing abuse or actually abusing  aka cheating. .....money or power.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Please don't turn Meta in the Reputation board. Here is no place for personal vendettas. The Rep board is already clogged with all that drama and moving it here will do no good at all. Calling everyone scammers without solid proof is just "pissing against the wind".
Lock this one and move it back to the Rep. Go fight your windmills there

[KaneVWE]

Please don't turn Meta in the Reputation board. Here is no place for personal vendettas. The Rep board is already clogged with all that drama and moving it here will do no good at all. Calling everyone scammers without solid proof is just "pissing against the wind".
Lock this one and move it back to the Rep. Go fight your windmills there

Who are you responding to oh unshaven one?

You seem to be in full agreement that accusing people of scamming with zero evidence is wrong
This is a good first step.

[suchmoon]

Please don't turn Meta in the Reputation board. Here is no place for personal vendettas. The Rep board is already clogged with all that drama and moving it here will do no good at all. Calling everyone scammers without solid proof is just "pissing against the wind".
Lock this one and move it back to the Rep. Go fight your windmills there

This thread was started in Economics and presumably was moved here by a mod. I don't know why they even bothered - should have gone straight to trash. The OP is a few marbles short of a full deck.

[OgNasty]

Please don't turn Meta in the Reputation board. Here is no place for personal vendettas. The Rep board is already clogged with all that drama and moving it here will do no good at all. Calling everyone scammers without solid proof is just "pissing against the wind".
Lock this one and move it back to the Rep. Go fight your windmills there

This thread was started in Economics and presumably was moved here by a mod. I don't know why they even bothered - should have gone straight to trash. The OP is a few marbles short of a full deck.

Regardless of thoughts about the OP, it is clear to see the trust network is in shambles.  You'd be foolish to think the mods aren't aware of this.  Everyone is just hoping that the community will grow to the point where active users take notice and are able to weed out the bad eggs, but it's getting worse than better to be honest.  I would have called the new trust system a failure and tried rebooting it already by now, but theymos must see something I don't to continue to allow things to trend in this direction.

[actmyname]

I would have called the new trust system a failure and tried rebooting it already by now, but theymos must see something I don't to continue to allow things to trend in this direction.

Accelerationism - through the eventual collapse of trust via the DefaultTrust system, we accelerate to a point where people are so skeptical of the system they decide to do what theymos had intended: making their own custom trust lists.

[LoyceV]

we accelerate to a point where people are so skeptical of the system they decide to do what theymos had intended: making their own custom trust lists.

Unfortunately, that's incorrect. Each week, only a fraction of the 91,210 active users creates a new custom Trust list:

If a user gets Nuked, their Trust list shows up as Wiped.

Data from Users who Created or Wiped their Trust list - weekly data, "weeks" are as used in my Trust list viewer: week 90 is based on last Saturday's Trust data dump.

I wish theymos would promote buillding a custom Trust list in a similar way as he promoted the April Fools KYC, that would reach a lot more users.

[KaneVWE]

Not only is it incorrect is is completely pointless.

The people needing protection the most are the noobs who have no clue who to trust.
How to expect them to create their own reliable trust lists.

So to  attain this pointless goal we should destroy the free speech of the forum and ensure a period of such untrustworthy scum on DT1 that it becomes so horrendous and so many people are negatively impacted that we abandon that and grasp around making our own trust lists.

Give them a bunch of long term traders of significant sums with long histories of exemplary financial conduct and zero instances of financially motivated wrongdoing as a default or forget it.
Defaulting them to trust proven scammers is messed up. Claiming its is fully intentional the corruption and negative impact of a default trust of self elected scamming slime will be very helpful at forcing people to form their own trust list is a possibility but surely just as easy to say no default trust make your own when you start.

Doesn't work, very dangerous in that it allows scamming with impunity from inside DT1 that are forced to collude or risk being booted anyway and repercussions. Kills free speech to a high degree.  Mad for moral and reputation of the forum.