~OgNasty's self scratching

[Laudanum]

You and I have a major disagreement over this.

My rules for trust as in a feedback and for putting people on my trust list do not match with yours.

If that's intentional, I won't stop you of course But I do think the Trust system functions best if most people use it the way it's intended.

Admin said this:

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

And this:

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

A very simple solution for most of the "self-scratching" drama would be to require at least 2 inclusions from DT1 to be on DT2. That would mean nobody has to decide on their own who gets to be DT2, and nobody can increase their own Trust ratings without at least someone else agreeing.

Wrong that would centralize control more to those that are already entrenched due to their own self scratching via merit cycling.

The design is a clusterfuck that is undeniable. Hence why you have a bunch of newbie scammer supporters and shady scum thinking they can tell the elder members who have huge trade histories and zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or supporting those that do in their past here what they can and can not do. lol

There is zero reason to follow guides or interpretations of guides to a system that is fatally flawed in the first place. It is entirely sensible to add those that you view and financially trustworthy and have proven to be.

If these people have proven they are trustworthy financially they have to be monitored like anyone else. But that is a better starting point.

The system is over complex and a total failure.
Self scratching and forced collusion is the basis for gaining entry to DT and staying there.

DT core scum self scratch in every way conceivable. They simply want OG out. Since he is not afraid to tag them red when he sees scamming. They dont want that. The same for anyone.  

Yes the trust system can be used to damage people who conduct legitmate honest business here
That is the major flaw. Lol it is a protection racket.

That should not be possible.  It is easy to fix.

Delete red shit tags and make flags 2 and 3 the only warnings.
Watch being on DT lose its shine.
People want it for personal power and to milk the forum.

You want a preemptive flag 1 then make sure you can provide strong evidence the person is setting up a scam or deliberately engaged in directly financially dangerous behavior.

You elder members should have always supported this because it is the only way to stop DT being seen as a place from which you can control free speech via prevention of paid2post, trading and legitimate business and also scam with impunity by blocking warnings against you and scaring people from speaking up. Also mutual red tag removal arrangements.

The trust system is full of holes. It is literally dangerous and facilitates scamming from inside DT and dilutes legitmate warnings for real scamming and financially motivated wrongdoing

Read it understand it and start to act.  If you think you can debunk any of it then try it.

They want OG off and will keep chipping away. Eventually he will be gone.
Then they have no person there to stand against them.

People like robovac and pharmacist although not scammers will just go with whomever they think their sigs are most safe with.
Currently it is the inner scum bag core.

Their back scratching has entrenched the inner core too deeply. So the serious elder members need to get to theymos to tighten up the warnings.  

Take away their subjective " punishment " system and make them abide by objective transparent standards and DT is no longer a meal ticket it is a legitmate warning system to help prevent scamming.

Speak up because one day they are coming for you.

[philipma1957]

So you hinder me from rating people that I do business with.

Or you hinder me from doing business from people I previously rated.

There seems to be some misunderstanding or confusion here.

Rating (sending feedback to) people who are unlikely to scam (positive) or high-risk (negative) is the primary use of the trust system and directly related to doing business here. Nothing that LoyceV said hinders that.

Including or excluding users in your trust list is different. You need to weigh whether the person's use of the trust system will have value to other users (at least to you and those who include you, or to the default trust system if you're in DT1). This isn't directly related to business, other than perhaps asking yourself "would this person's sent trust ratings and trust inclusions/exclusions be useful or harmful to other users trying to do business here".

It literally says so at the top of your trust list (emphasis mine): "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line. Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network."

Seems quite straightforward. Don't overcomplicate it.

I am not everyone I added fits both definitions.

They deserve both positive feed back and they are trustworthy as per the definition of the trust list rules.

I added
mikeywith
favebook
wndsnb
HerbPeon

to my trust list today as all of them have done ✅ by the rules of adding to a trust list.

all of them are decent members that don’t do bad on the forum and they do a lot of good on the forum.

one of them has positive feedback for me. and it boosted me to 83 from 81.

I was very careful in reviewing them.

Now if you look at my received feedback There are a lot more that I could add to my trust list.

that look good enough to be trusted.

that is my major point about the concept of attack against og in this thread 🧵

it was used against me it was used against minerjones and it can be used against anyone that puts in any name on their trust list.

In fact I could put anyone on my trust list that is well qualifed and if they ever ever ever ever give me a positive feedback my 83 moves  to 84 and i self scratched.

I ask a simple question can anyone go back in time and find my old trust list that had HerbPeon on it back in 2017 or 2016. can anyone find if I am lying or telling the truth about my old trust list I pruned it extensively due to the attack thread on me.

if you can clearly show the history or my trust list every removal an addition can you do it for every member?

If you cant have a transparent clear verifiable trust list history for every member doing these hit threads are bs.

btw does anyone have an issue with the people i added today?

[Laudanum]

So you hinder me from rating people that I do business with.

Or you hinder me from doing business from people I previously rated.

There seems to be some misunderstanding or confusion here.

Rating (sending feedback to) people who are unlikely to scam (positive) or high-risk (negative) is the primary use of the trust system and directly related to doing business here. Nothing that LoyceV said hinders that.

Including or excluding users in your trust list is different. You need to weigh whether the person's use of the trust system will have value to other users (at least to you and those who include you, or to the default trust system if you're in DT1). This isn't directly related to business, other than perhaps asking yourself "would this person's sent trust ratings and trust inclusions/exclusions be useful or harmful to other users trying to do business here".

It literally says so at the top of your trust list (emphasis mine): "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line. Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network."

Seems quite straightforward. Don't overcomplicate it.

I am not everyone I added fits both definitions.

They deserve both positive feed back and they are trustworthy as per the definition of the trust list rules.

I added
mikeywith
favebook
wndsnb
HerbPeon

to my trust list today as all of them have done ✅ by the rules of adding to a trust list.

all of them are decent members that don’t do bad on the forum and they do a lot of good on the forum.

one of them has positive feedback for me. and it boosted me to 83 from 81.

I was very careful in reviewing them.

Now if you look at my received feedback There are a lot more that I could add to my trust list.

that look good enough to be trusted.

that is my major point about the concept of attack against og in this thread 🧵

it was used against me it was used against minerjones and it can be used against anyone that puts in any name on their trust list.

In fact I could put anyone on my trust list that is well qualifed and if they ever ever ever ever give me a positive feedback my 83 moves  to 84 and i self scratched.

I ask a simple question can anyone go back in time and find my old trust list that had HerbPeon on it back in 2017 or 2016. can anyone find if I am lying or telling the truth about my old trust list I pruned it extensively due to the attack thread on me.

if you can clearly show the history or my trust list every removal an addition can you do it for every member?

If you cant have a transparent clear verifiable trust list history for every member doing these hit threads are bs.

btw does anyone have an issue with the people i added today?

There would be no attack on you OG or anyone if DT was not seen as a meal ticket.

The fix is very easy. But nobody cares about supporting it until this DT self elected bunch of noobs comes after them.

The trust system needs to be a reliable weapon against scammers not a weapon against anyone that doesnt follow what DT members want.

No point trying to appease them and hope they wont attack again later.

Take the ability of attacks on honest members away for good.

There is no place for warnings in any trust system for people that have not scammed ,attempted to scam or strongly appear to be setting up a scam. Whilst there is a possibility to damage others here on other grounds the trust system is fucked.

Nobody would care about being on DT if it was not a meal ticket.
If you had to meet a transparent objective requirement as mentioned above to damage someone's account then all the holes in the trust system and the boot from the neck of free speech vanishes.
Warnings are not diluted and it works way better. You could still prevent legitimate warnings from being inside DT but they could not scare people into supporting them or scare people from whistleblowing

The very fact current DT do not want transparent objective standards is clearly a very bad sign.

Wake up stop appeasing and trying to fit it with these dirty scum bags.

When self scratching doesnt remove OG there will be " another " reason or attack.

[Vod]

btw does anyone have an issue with the people i added today?

What you've done is fine, and does not compare to adding inactive and thieves to people you trust.   But back on topic...

They want OG off and will keep chipping away. Eventually he will be gone.

OG does good:  OG / RCM flagged a user for scamming a couple pennies by pulling out of a deal.
OG does bad:  OG says he "lost" over 6,000 coins, but he probably stole them.

In his case the bad far outweighs the good.   His actions have been self-centered for three decades.

[suchmoon]

I am not everyone I added fits both definitions.

They deserve both positive feed back and they are trustworthy as per the definition of the trust list rules.

I'm still not following how this hinders your ability to do business or use the trust system. You did everything right. End of story?

Even if you get excluded for this (unlikely) - so what? As long as your trust list works for you. Same with OgNasty. If his trust list makes him feel happy - good for him.

While I disagree with your "show and tell" here to include users just to prove something to us, I don't see it as equivalent of OgNasty including accounts that have been inactive for years and have no value to anyone other than to boost his own trust rating.

I'm quite surprised that you don't see the difference and insist that this is somehow an attack on anyone doing business. It's not. OgNasty can do business perfectly fine without being in DT. I'm not suggesting he should be labeled as scammer. I'm saying his judgement is not to be trusted. I have distrusted OgNasty years ago and I suggest anyone who can objectively look at his actions should do the same.

Call it an attack if you want but I consider it my responsibility to point things like that out... it's everyone's own decision what they want to do with it. Should they choose to exclude me instead that's perfectly fine too.

[philipma1957]

I am not everyone I added fits both definitions.

They deserve both positive feed back and they are trustworthy as per the definition of the trust list rules.

I'm still not following how this hinders your ability to do business or use the trust system. You did everything right. End of story?

Even if you get excluded for this (unlikely) - so what? As long as your trust list works for you. Same with OgNasty. If his trust list makes him feel happy - good for him.

While I disagree with your "show and tell" here to include users just to prove something to us, I don't see it as equivalent of OgNasty including accounts that have been inactive for years and have no value to anyone other than to boost his own trust rating.

I'm quite surprised that you don't see the difference and insist that this is somehow an attack on anyone doing business. It's not. OgNasty can do business perfectly fine without being in DT. I'm not suggesting he should be labeled as scammer. I'm saying his judgement is not to be trusted. I have distrusted OgNasty years ago and I suggest anyone who can objectively look at his actions should do the same.

Call it an attack if you want but I consider it my responsibility to point things like that out... it's everyone's own decision what they want to do with it. Should they choose to exclude me instead that's perfectly fine too.

Like I said we can agree to disagree. My point is I was attacked Og was attacked minerjones got grief. Basically This self scratch can be used retroactivly against anyone with a trust list.

unless they just do defaultTrust.


here is some of my trust list.

theymos
OgNasty
-ck
buysolar
TookDk
suchmoon


added today

wndsnb
HerbPean ------- I gained 2 points with this. This was removed back in 2016-2017 due to the attack thread on me.
mikeywith
favebook
DefaultTrust




lets argue I add

  NotFuzzyWarm to my list he has been a good member and worked well with a lot of people in the mining section

So adding him to the trust list is not unreasonable.  But if he ever gives me a trust it looks like a self scratch.

So I get put in the position of either do business and never list anyone to the my trust list.

Or work my trust list and never do business with anyone here.


To not see what I am writing as a simple truth is what it is.  It is also how the attack thread on me showing me as 3x that of anyone on the forum was created.

I am not defending Og here in this thread. I am attacking the method being used to attack him as

McCarthyism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

and stating it should be a banned attack method on the forum as it is a threat to anyone that list someone in their trust list.

Feel free to attack Og in other thread with other methods. but this type of attack is wrong against anyone at all even it they are guilty of it.

Since you can frame any one as a self scratcher if you have access to their trust list.

[Laudanum]

btw does anyone have an issue with the people i added today?

What you've done is fine, and does not compare to adding inactive and thieves to people you trust.   But back on topic...

They want OG off and will keep chipping away. Eventually he will be gone.

OG does good:  OG / RCM flagged a user for scamming a couple pennies by pulling out of a deal.
OG does bad:  OG says he "lost" over 6,000 coins, but he probably stole them.

In his case the bad far outweighs the good.   His actions haven been self-centered for three decades.

Look you are making this too complicated.

1. There is undeniable independently verifiable evidence of scamming.
2. There is clear undeniable evidence they tried to scam.
3.  There is strong independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates all the hallmarks of setting up a scam.

Warning is given the point it is has to be financially motivated and have strong evidence that can be analysed.

Where the DT is a mess is where anything you do can be used to take away your paid2post or damage conducting business on the subjective view of self elected DT.  It doesnt have to be financially related in anyway.  They will invent some mental gymnastics that say you drink lemonade or call them cunts that makes you a scammer or prone to scamming.  

Tie it directly to the 3 points above all the trust systems largest holes and treating DT and meal ticket is over.
Merit sources cycling and back scratching themselves and each other will still place the same people on DT but the power of DT to cause damage is mostly over for good.  They can still rely on scumbag campaign managers to say oh we only want people with lots of merits and who are on DT but free speech and free trade will be unhindered.

That's the best you can hope for now. Because theymos obviously simply didnt want to be responsible for hand picking DT and legally I can understand that. But make the threshold for damaging peoples trade and paid2post transparent and objective.

And really kick the shit out of abusers and make an example not cry to other DT to exclude Man up and kick them off at once.

No room for scammers no room for DT protection racket abuse and scamming with impunity or red tag trading.

It will be hard to prevent stuff like lfcbitcoin did aka giving people trust includes who help you block flags on your sponsor ?  But there should be no flag without meeting the above 3 points anyway.

The type 1 flag aka preemptive is always tricky but must have a direct financial aspect to it.

You dont have to worry as much who is on DT if they are not allowed to be entirely subjective and self serving.

There is no reasonable counter argument. If there is bring it now.

The entire trust system is rooted on self scratching and collusion. Crying about OGs self scratching here is bogus and laughable.

If these people he added had any kind of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that would be different.

[Vod]

Feel free to attack Og in other thread with other methods. but this type of attack is wrong against anyone at all even it they are guilty of it.

This is the accusation thread - did he mention your name here just to deflect?

What you did is not the same as OG.  I also am not aware of years of you lying/scamming like I am with OG.   

If you would like to compare your imagined persecution, can you start up another thread?

[suchmoon]

So adding him to the trust list is not unreasonable.  But if he ever gives me a trust it looks like a self scratch.

Not sure I get that part. If he gives you a positive rating later? That's not on you. That's not what's being discussed in this thread.

Since you can frame any one as a self scratcher if you have access to their trust list.

Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

[philipma1957]

So adding him to the trust list is not unreasonable.  But if he ever gives me a trust it looks like a self scratch.

Not sure I get that part. If he gives you a positive rating later? That's not on you. That's not what's being discussed in this thread.

Since you can frame any one as a self scratcher if you have access to their trust list.

Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list.  I have to trust the list keeper.

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

with out a new thread called my trust list revealed.

this record is what is on the link for me  it is out of date. as I added 4 people.


philipma1957 Trusts these users' judgement:
1. theymos (Trust: +29 / =0 / -0) (6968 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. OgNasty (Trust: +81 / =4 / -5) (DT1! (6) 1080 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. -ck (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (353 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. buysolar (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. TookDk (Trust: +31 / =0 / -0) (54 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. sidehack (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (600 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. Biffa (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (146 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. suchmoon (Trust: +14 / =0 / -0) (4956 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. DaveF (Trust: +25 / =1 / -0) (DT1! ( 1052 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. HagssFIN (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (470 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. generalt (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (7 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. LoyceV (Trust: +27 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (54) 6200 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
13. frodocooper (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (154 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
14. Hockeybum (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (31 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
15. WhyFhy (Trust: +3 / =3 / -1) (97 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
16. MoparMiningLLC (Trust: +26 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (3) 706 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
17. DireWolfM14 (Trust: +18 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (13) 1895 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Now I added my four as I mentioned.  and herein lies the issue.

all proof of all trust lists are in the hands of loyce and he can use it to attack some one as he sees fit.

how do I know when someone added a name to his list? yeah I mentioned my adds to my list.

How do I know when Og put his people on his trust list when only loyce keeps the record.

The names listed in op first thread could have been their for a long time months and months ago. Loyce could go back pull the names off and add them back for just the last week.

So if you do both trust list and feedback you are forced to quote and print everyone every done in a new thread.

[LoyceV]

Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list.  I have to trust the list keeper.

You're actually the first to mention this. You're right, theoretically I could edit my Trust list viewer. But I'm pretty sure someone will find out eventually, which would destroy my image as "Switzerland".
You can verify the data using https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz. This is theymos' trust data dump, which I use to create my weekly update.

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

Yes I could. No I didn't. Feel free to convince yourself by randomly checking some of the profiles each week.

this record is what is on the link for me  it is out of date. as I added 4 people.

Theymos updates "trust.txt.xz" once a week (Saturday early morning in my time zone), so unfortunately I can't provide more frequent updates.
Note that theymos' weekly data dump only shows Trust relations for users who have at least one post. So Nuked users don't show up.

all proof of all trust lists are in the hands of loyce and he can use it to attack some one as he sees fit.

If you wipe your Trust list and remove DefaultTrust, you can include just one person to make your Trust list reflect theirs. Don't do this test if you're on DT1 though, create a new account if needed.

How do I know when Og put his people on his trust list when only loyce keeps the record.

For DT1, there's BPIP's DefaultTrust Change Log. I think it checks every 10 minutes.

The names listed in op first thread could have been their for a long time months and months ago. Loyce could go back pull the names off and add them back for just the last week.

I know people say I'm an AI, but I really don't have time for this
Feel free to archive old versions though.

[Laudanum]

So adding him to the trust list is not unreasonable.  But if he ever gives me a trust it looks like a self scratch.

Not sure I get that part. If he gives you a positive rating later? That's not on you. That's not what's being discussed in this thread.

Since you can frame any one as a self scratcher if you have access to their trust list.

Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list.  I have to trust the list keeper.

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

with out a new thread called my trust list revealed.

Lists shouldn't matter.

You should be free of fear on this forum unless you're a scammer or deliberately work with or protected scammers
Then you should fear.

Whilst fear can be induced on any other ground by other members here the forum is a failure.
This is simply 1 excuse to attack OG.

Fix the system not implore or beg these scum bags to accept your motivation for your choices.
It's a temp fix. Fix it perm.

Self scratching or not wont really matter as much. Its only an issue when they say others self scratch anyway.

[suchmoon]

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

Except that if LoyceV did that he'd probably end up excluded and red-trusted since the data can be verified independently, e.g. here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt

It's just more convenient on his site.

[mikeywith]

Phill, the data LoyceV uses is public, theymos makes it, in reality, even theymos can't alter it, because these records are just images of our inclusions, so if theymos' data mentions that I included member "xyz" last week when I have not done that, I would have complained and Meta would be full of it.

Loyce puts that data into an easy to read/use format, and then it's up to each and everyone to "interpret" that data.

While everyone can include/exclude whoever they want, we as a community must set a bit of standard to it, if not then these numbers that show on our profiles will become meaningless.

Take a look at my feedback




What I can do (assuming I am in DT1) is to include all the members who left me that positive feedback and my score would be close to 40+ instead of 2+, I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted, but +10 isn't the same as +100, I only have 2 visible feedback despite having traded tens of thousands of dollars in this form but it so happened that the products I trade are not in the interest of DT members which is fine but is it ok to alter my trust list to make my feedback look better just because I think I deserve a better score?

There are many times when you include someone and by coincidence, you increase your overall rating, but that is completely fine, doing this on purpose however isn't.

One thing I didn't like about being in DT1 was this very problem, I even mentioned it to Theymos in the same message which I sent to ask him to blacklist me from DT1, I want to be able to add some people to my trust list without directly making them DT2, but I knew my request was not going to go through and then with all the DT drama which I prefer to stay away from I decided to set-back and relax, being on DT2 only is a (+), you know your feedback on those scammers are going to help a lot of people, and you also know that you won't be accused of self scratching or any other thing similar.

Now back to the accusation, there is a chance that Og added those 8 members for the sole purpose of strengthening the trust system by adding members that have good judgment, there is also a chance that he did so to increase his ratings, it's up to everyone to decide and act accordingly.

On a side note: I only chimed in because my name was mentioned a dozen times in this thread and because I felt like phill could use some explanation.

[Vod]

I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

7 years ago he proudly announced he paid back 1% of a total loss of 6,500 btc.   Now he's posting like it never happened, and even denying he ran that pirate passthrough ponzi. 

Now you may say ok he lost more than anyone ever has, but that was many years ago.

Then he held 500 btc of forum funds, got paid 6btc a year to safeguard them, instead he treated them as if they were his own and stole value from them.

Fast forward to last month - a users pulls out after he finds out OG is the escrow.  OG loses pennies (due to his own reputation) but still flags and leaves negative trust.

So NO - OgNasty cannot be trusted with large or small amounts.  Anyone who says otherwise, or says I lie about it, has a political agenda.

[nutildah]

I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

Not totally on topic but I'll say it. I don't trust him. Using the treasury's private keys to claim a shitcoin without telling anybody about it is pretty damn untrustworthy. You can say whatever you want about me, I've never profited dishonestly off the forum, especially to the massive tune that Og has... or as he calls it, "building off bitcoin." 

[suchmoon]

I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

Not totally on topic but I'll say it. I don't trust him. Using the treasury's private keys to claim a shitcoin without telling anybody about it is pretty damn untrustworthy. You can say whatever you want about me, I've never profited dishonestly off the forum, especially to the massive tune that Og has... or as he calls it, "building off bitcoin." 

I would probably trust him to not steal money in broad daylight but I'm not so certain that he wouldn't do it if he thought he could get away with it, like with that airdrop.

Which means he's probably fine to use as escrow in public deals except I wouldn't recommend him to anybody whom he doesn't like... not so much because of possibly losing money but because of possible harassment and other shenanigans. Come to think of it, even if you're on good terms with him now, he'll shit on you later if you stop praising him. At one point he accused ibminer of stealing because ib said something unfavorable about nastyfans.

So yeah. Why bother. Just use another escrow who doesn't suffer from narcissistic delusions.

[Laudanum]

I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

7 years ago he proudly announced he paid back 1% of a total loss of 6,500 btc.   Now he's posting like it never happened, and even denying he ran that pirate passthrough ponzi.  

Now you may say ok he lost more than anyone ever has, but that was many years ago.

Then he held 500 btc of forum funds, got paid 6btc a year to safeguard them, instead he treated them as if they were his own and stole value from them.

Fast forward to last month - a users pulls out after he finds out OG is the escrow.  OG loses pennies (due to his own reputation) but still flags and leaves negative trust.

So NO - OgNasty cannot be trusted with large or small amounts.  Anyone who says otherwise, or says I lie about it, has a political agenda.

Dozens are saying? I see the same bunch of people that have scamming, willing scam facilitating for pay or protecting scammers like you vod.

Now had you not have been found to be protecting 2 proven scammers before and not commenting at all when lauda used escrow funds to do the same thing you're accusing OG of and then adding them to you inclusions then perhaps you could be taken semi seriously by the objective reader here.

Well then you wouldn't appear to be a hypocritical scammers supporting coward that even admitted you dare not previously exclude lauda from the trust system or red tag them out of fear they may use the trust system to ruin your account. That's exactly the problem with the trust system and what makes it very dangerous.

You are all missing the point.

Whilst it remains possible for any member to ruin your account where there is zero evidence of scamming,  attempting to scam or setting up a scam or any financially motivated wrongdoing at all then the trust system is DANGEROUS..

Lol at this self scratching / back scratching being just another hole in the system.
It is largely irrelevant and totally and utterly the foundation of every members route and election on to DT

Everyone is self scratching and colluding it's part of the design. Merit cycling is the first round of self scratching and collusion that enables round 2 of the same self scratching collusion on trust inclusions exclusions.

They are just making up illogical garbage that favours their position.  
It's not about the person being financially trustworthy it's only about their opinions of others lol

Still they will trick you into defending your actions per the terms they claim are the rules. They dont want you to recognize the rules themselves and design is a dangerous design that placed them where they are now and has entrenched them with the power to crush free speech, crush everyone's ability to paid2post and trade freely on their whims, and see they are paid at the highest rates on this forum for doing so.

Lol so by all means keep falling for this trick. You dont need to appease these noob trash greedy sig spamming scammer supporters.

You need to lobby theymos to require a transparent objective standard for damaging a persons account.
They are either meet the 3 criteria above or they do not.

This will not fix the dumb self election process to DT and will not stop them milking the forum.  However it will stop them crushing free speech and  it will stop them damaging innocent persons accounts and threatening people , and it will stop the trust system being diluted with bogus warnings of financially motivated wrongdoing because someone said something they didnt like.

Dont bother defending yourselves on their bogus terms.
Those terms are entirely dangerous and counter productive because to operate correctly within the system without breaking the rules is dangerous anyway lol

Sadly most people are too stupid to understand the clear implications of the system.
If so just take my word for it or try to debunk my points.

Just use another escrow says suchmoon? Oh who's would you reccomend?


Lol you heard it here first folks nutildah of all people
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

Doesnt trust OG because he did the same thing lauda did while escrowing but he didnt mind lauda doing it. Actually he had lauda on his trust inclusions for ages. Maybe because lauda was self scratching nutildah. Lauda was hunting down people who had put their accounts up for sale. He was tagging them. When someone pointed out nutildah had put his up for sale. What did lauda say??
There is nothing anyone can say that will make me give nutildah a red tag or words to that effect.  One big long back scratching shitty mess is what the trust system is.

So think about that and see how that sinks in.  

Those hiding away watching that double standards and dirty antics of DT1 are equally as bad.
Cowards and weasels and they will eventually come for you or you'll have to be their bitch forever.
Ask PN7 what that feels like.  Getting some crumbs as long as you toe the line.
Yuck.

[OgNasty]

Dozens are saying he can't be trusted.

7 years ago he proudly announced he paid back 1% of a total loss of 6,500 btc.   Now he's posting like it never happened, and even denying he ran that pirate passthrough ponzi.  

Now you may say ok he lost more than anyone ever has, but that was many years ago.

Then he held 500 btc of forum funds, got paid 6btc a year to safeguard them, instead he treated them as if they were his own and stole value from them.

Fast forward to last month - a users pulls out after he finds out OG is the escrow.  OG loses pennies (due to his own reputation) but still flags and leaves negative trust.

So NO - OgNasty cannot be trusted with large or small amounts.  Anyone who says otherwise, or says I lie about it, has a political agenda.

I highlighted the lies in red.  LOL.  This is why trusting Vod either means you are mentally challenged or have an agenda.

Not totally on topic but I'll say it. I don't trust him. Using the treasury's private keys to claim a shitcoin without telling anybody about it is pretty damn untrustworthy. You can say whatever you want about me, I've never profited dishonestly off the forum, especially to the massive tune that Og has... or as he calls it, "building off bitcoin."  

More lies.  It was my fiduciary duty to make sure that alts were claimed.  I did so.  I then only took what theymos said I could have.  It is not my fault if he failed to keep track of what alts there were and didn't bother to ask me for a summary before gifting all the remaining alts to me.  I actually think his response on the matter without even discussing it with me was immature and think he should have appreciated my efforts and taken some personal responsibility on the matter.  You saying it was untrustworthy of me or dishonest in any way after theymos himself stated it wasn't is something only a moron or a boy with an agenda could do.  However, what theymos did say accurately was that leaving Vod red trust is appropriate, but I guess you missed that or just haven't red trusted Vod yet?

EDIT:

Others should take notice that this is what suchmoon and friends do. Most won’t speak up and philipma1957 is being more courageous than many realize by publicly outing this abusive and inappropriate harassment to attack anyone standing in the way of their complete control of the trust network. I’m sure there are many others who would also come forward, but they walked away from bitcointalk instead of fighting against these attacks.

Hey look, another day, another honest user who has been a positive participant in the community for years who would rather leave bitcointalk then deal with the lies and harassment of these users.  People have been asking for years what is happening to all the long term use case creators in this community, well...  Do you still have to ask?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5298464.0

[philipma1957]

Everyone's trust list is public: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/64507.html

and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list.  I have to trust the list keeper.

You're actually the first to mention this. You're right, theoretically I could edit my Trust list viewer. But I'm pretty sure someone will find out eventually, which would destroy my image as "Switzerland".
You can verify the data using https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz. This is theymos' trust data dump, which I use to create my weekly update.

So  loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself

Yes I could. No I didn't. Feel free to convince yourself by randomly checking some of the profiles each week.

this record is what is on the link for me  it is out of date. as I added 4 people.

Theymos updates "trust.txt.xz" once a week (Saturday early morning in my time zone), so unfortunately I can't provide more frequent updates.
Note that theymos' weekly data dump only shows Trust relations for users who have at least one post. So Nuked users don't show up.

all proof of all trust lists are in the hands of loyce and he can use it to attack some one as he sees fit.

If you wipe your Trust list and remove DefaultTrust, you can include just one person to make your Trust list reflect theirs. Don't do this test if you're on DT1 though, create a new account if needed.

How do I know when Og put his people on his trust list when only loyce keeps the record.

For DT1, there's BPIP's DefaultTrust Change Log. I think it checks every 10 minutes.

The names listed in op first thread could have been their for a long time months and months ago. Loyce could go back pull the names off and add them back for just the last week.

I know people say I'm an AI, but I really don't have time for this
Feel free to archive old versions though.

and you have admitted to my only problem with the attack on og you can doctor the evidence.

edit:  to be clear this attack on this thread done against Og  is done with evidence that may or may not have been doctored.

Which is why I butted in as the same attacked method was used on me and could be used on anyone on the forum.

Only theymos  can refute or say the info is true.