Incorrect Feedback?

[Bitcoin Smith]

User Satofan44 gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back over a post^[1] who is now currently included into DT2 by @joker_josue[DT1], which I believe isn't necessary to do and incorrect use of Trust system especially for a post which I gave pretty good explanation to himself why TX on LN will become untraceable in the reported thread itself ^[2] and he didn't respond any further. While ABCbits asked an explanation which I gave in the respective discussion ^[3]. We keep saying bitcointalk is a friendly community but someone thought you post something wrong (Which I don't) instead of correcting it just decided to give a tag for that.

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65473997#msg65473997
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65482294#msg65482294
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65486191#msg65486191

Why I am creating this thread?

If you disagree with a trust rating you've received, complain to the person who gave you the rating, and/or complain to people who include that person in their trust lists, and/or post in the Reputation section. We do not moderate trust ratings for correctness.

If you see a post that is spam or should otherwise be deleted, use the "report to moderator" link to report it. And similarly for PMs, but with the "report to admin" link.

So I am seeking what community members think about this matter especially joker_josue who thought this judgment is correct and added him into his trust list.

[Despairo]

First I'm not really a technical person, so I don't really understand and know which one is right or wrong.

But the funny thing is he reported two users, but he only gave tag to you.

I mean, if you tag someone because of spreading incorrect information, why the other one didn't get it too?

It feels like there's something wrong, he should either tag both of you or not tagging at all. Let's see what he will do.

[LoyceV]

All I can add is I stopped reading your post right here:

the trail breaks when you transfer Munn to Speed via LN because it's happening offline

Neutral feedback isn't that important, and I've never used "Munn" (did you mean Muun Wallet?) or "Speed", but what you wrote here matches the feedback:

This user spread false/fake information on technical board.

[yahoo62278]

Did you send a message to Satofan before creating this thread and try to resolve the situation without escalation? If not, you might consider doing that now. Ultimately it's a neutral trust so it's not a huge deal since neutral trust doesn't really hurt anyone. You're going to see conflicting opinions as far as whether  a user can basically post their opinion in the form of a neutral trust on your profile. Some are for and some are against. Some will tell you to get "thicker skin"  and move on.

I suggest that if you disagree with his opinion and you guys cannot come to a mutual agreement that you ignore him and if you need to ~ him on your trust list.

[_act_]

All I can add is I stopped reading your post right here:

the trail breaks when you transfer Munn to Speed via LN because it's happening offline

Neutral feedback isn't that important, and I've never used "Munn" (did you mean Muun Wallet?) or "Speed", but what you wrote here matches the feedback:

This user spread false/fake information on technical board.

I think he meant to send the BTC from Muun wallet to Speed wallet using lightning network. The OP of the thread posted this:

I buy BTC on a KYC exchange and transfer it (on-chain) to a hot wallet on my desktop. From there I transfer it (again on-chain) to Muun wallet on my phone. From Muun I pass it through Lightning network to Speed wallet, also on my phone and finally I send it (on-chain) to my final cold storage address.

According to what I have read about lightning network in the past, it can be used to block the trace, but if someone sent certain amount of bitcoin on-chain to a wallet, open a channel, sent the coin to to another lightning wallet and close the channel on the other wallet, maybe it can be traced if it happened within a short period of time, the amount used to open and close the channel might be used for the tracing, I think. We have seen government trace monero transaction before, I guess it has to do with tracing of the amount and not an error about monero transaction anonymity at all.

I do not know about Speed wallet, I downloaded it, I input one of my useless email but it then asked me of my full name, country and state. I stopped immediately because it might even asked me to get verified but which I do not know about. People should have told the OP on the thread about how such wallet is bad for privacy. I guess it is a custodial wallet entirely. Using wallet like sending from Muun to Phoenix would have been better.

If wallets like Muun, Phoenix, Zeus, Lightning Electrum are used for it and the user does not send the full amount but divided it into different lightning wallets, it will be hard to trace.


@Bitcoin Smith, just settle this with Satofan44 through PM amicably. If he says lightning network transaction can be traced led to the neutral trust, I do not think it is worth it.

[Bitcoin Smith]

I mean, if you tag someone because of spreading incorrect information, why the other one didn't get it too?

It feels like there's something wrong, he should either tag both of you or not tagging at all. Let's see what he will do.

It is because he seems to be agreeing there's different level of centralization (or he didn't want to engage with same level because the other user is already in DT and I am not).

All I can add is I stopped reading your post right here:

the trail breaks when you transfer Munn to Speed via LN because it's happening offline

What about now,

1. Perhaps, I should have used the term Off-chain not offline that created the confusion in the first place.

Did you send a message to Satofan before creating this thread and try to resolve the situation without escalation?

@Bitcoin Smith, just settles this with Satofan44 through PM.

No I didn't, with the few interactions I had he seems to be dismissive of what I am trying to say. Maybe I will try doing that if he didn't respond here.

[yahoo62278]

No I didn't, with the few interactions I had he seems to be dismissive of what I am trying to say. Maybe I will try doing that if he didn't respond here.

It's probably safe to assume you didn't send Sato a pm regarding this thread then either, so I sent a pm to the user and asked them to have a look at this thread.

However this ends up being resolved, it looks like a respected member of the community disagrees and finds the feedback legitimate. You might make sure what you are saying is 100% accurate if you are responding in topics like that. It's not like the gambling board where spam is tolerated and speculation runs wild.

[LoyceV]

What about now,

1. Perhaps, I should have used the term Off-chain not offline that created the confusion in the first place.

That's would have been better. I still can't really comment on breaking the link between funds, as I don't really know the inner workings of LN (nodes). I know bits and pieces, but that's not enough. And I think that's kinda the point: we've seen many people posting incorrect information on the tech board, usually trying to earn Merit or they're just after those signature earnings. Either way, it's better not to have the wrong information on the tech boards.

[Satofan44]

It feels like there's something wrong, he should either tag both of you or not tagging at all. Let's see what he will do.

Speculative dramatization is not helpful. I am very busy and my activity is sporadic. I essentially almost never read this section. I didn't know I was included in DT2? I didn't even know much about this system before seeing this topic. At this point I would like to say thank you to the user yahoo62278. Had he not sent me a DM about this thread, it is very likely that I would not have seen it for some time.  

I've looked into the situation again. The reason why I didn't leave a tag on dkbit98 is because of this post.

But i expect @dkbit98 can give acceptable reasoning why he think LN is centralized, so i'll wait him to reply about it either on this or that thread.

After reading this and knowing that the user has received many merits, I decided to give them a chance to explain themselves and expected a profound answer. The answer never came. As I was busy with Lightning, I practically forgot about this. I have also left him a Tag now.

As for the feedback, there is no chance that I will remove it. The only correct thing to do is to discuss things that you have (real) knowledge in, everything else should be ignored until you have gained sufficient understanding of the topic for you to be able to make statements about it. You're welcome to participate by asking questions, but that's the extent of it. As soon as you start making unfounded statements you have started doing harm. Educating people and getting them to use Bitcoin is hard enough, and it is made even more difficult by the vast amount of misinformation about nearly every aspect of Bitcoin circulating on the internet.

That's better. I still can't really comment on breaking the link between funds, as I don't really know the inner workings of LN (nodes). I know bits and pieces, but that's not enough. And I think that's kinda the point: we've seen many people posting incorrect information on the tech board, usually trying to earn Merit or they're just after those signature earnings. Either way, it's better not to have the wrong information on the tech boards.

That is also a point of the issue. You can't comment so simply on these things because the reality is very complex and nuanced. A lot of users are just repeating surface information that they've seen somewhere else. Usually it is not based on theoretical research or empirical knowledge, and as such is almost always wrong. Some posts will be wrong in the details, others will be completely wrong but the point is the same. One should not comment on it. I am in complete agreement with the last sentence.

[LoyceV]

That is also a point of the issue. You can't comment so simply on these things because the reality is very complex and nuanced. A lot of users are just repeating surface information that they've seen somewhere else. Usually it is not based on theoretical research or empirical knowledge, and as such is almost always wrong.

This image comes to mind:

(source)

I feel like I'm somewhere on the green line where I realize the amount of things I don't know only keeps increasing.

[_act_]

Speculative dramatization is not helpful. I am very busy and my activity is sporadic. I essentially almost never read this section. I didn't know I was included in DT2? I didn't even know much about this system before seeing this topic. At this point I would like to say thank you to the user yahoo62278. Had he not sent me a DM about this thread, it is very likely that I would not have seen it for some time.  Smiley

If we see a newbie, we can easily know the person is a newbie. I hope you understood this irony.

After reading this and knowing that the user has received many merits, I decided to give them a chance to explain themselves and expected a profound answer. The answer never came. As I was busy with Lightning, I practically forgot about this. I have also left him a Tag now.

You are only misusing the trust feedback if you can not quote someone and correct the person. If I met people like you in this forum like if o_e_l_e_o is someone like you, I do not think I will stay so long like this on this forum because of how bad you are handling trust feedback. They were better and not like this and he prefer to correct people instead except if the person is just worth the feedback.

Lightning network is not centralized just as the bitcoin network is not centralized, but there are some people that are using centralized wallets and exchanges which is what is related to centralization about lightning networks as most people are using bitcoin lightning centralized wallets and that can not be regarded as the lightning network.

About the chain analysis, I researched about it now and I saw this online:

We are excited to announce that Chainalysis will be the first blockchain analysis company to  offer customers a transaction monitoring solution for the Lightning Network. In the beginning of next year we will be introducing Lightning Network transaction monitoring to Chainalysis KYT, the world’s leading cryptocurrency transaction monitoring software. Our customers will be able to use KYT to monitor their Lighting Network transactions, screen for risky activity, and gain valuable insights.

I need to get the tool but I do not know where I can get it. I just want to see it because all I know about lightning network transaction before was that it is hard to trace. The transactions are not to be publicly seen.

I must still say again that giving dkbit98 such neutral feedback is not right. Quote and correct him instead and further the discussion.

[Satofan44]

I must still say again that giving dkbit98 such neutral feedback is not right. Quote and correct him instead and further the discussion.

Saying that LN is centralized because many people use it wrongly is a lie. There is nothing to discuss here. I have given more than enough time. Why do you care so much about dkbit98? Is he your account or are you related in some way?

Majority of users are using custodial lightning network wallets, and it's all being hosted on big hosting servers like amazon, g00gle, digital ocean, etc.
I have seen reports that 98% of Lightning Network users likely don't run their own node or manage their own channels.
This is not ''fud'', it's reality and common knowledge.

You are only misusing the trust feedback if you can not quote someone and correct the person. If I met people like you in this forum like if o_e_l_e_o is someone like you, I do not think I will stay so long like this on this forum because of how bad you are handling trust feedback. They were better and not like this and he prefer to correct people instead except if the person is just worth the feedback.

I don't know o_e_l_e_o so this part makes little sense to me. I didn't ask to get included in any trust system and I am not the one who frequently posts lies like dkbit98 and the original author of this thread. The users need to take responsibility for their actions. If you can't contribute productively, don't contribute. This is why it is not good to get involved in this section, many users prefer to waste time on nonsense instead of doing productive things. Feel free to remove me from this trust system if my feedback is in any way wrong, I do not care about this. The reference and feedback will stay and I will continue to tag other users from that section that post spam or lies.

That is it from me on this topic unless a more sensible post comes that warrants my attention. I have made things equal by tagging both users.

[FinneysTrueVision]

If we want to split hairs and pick apart everything people say, then satofan44 could also be given neutral or possibly even negative feedback for defending shady scam exchange ChangeNOW.

ChangeNOW isn’t just over complying with regulations, they outright scam people by selectively enforcing KYC and then ghosting users who actually provide their personal information in hopes of recovering their funds. It’s just one of various fronts used by Evercode Lab to scam people.

Resorting to immediately tagging people over an opinion that we feel is misleading or incorrect isn’t the best approach. It’s better to counter with facts and hope that people will become better informed.

[Perfectbaby]

From my own of judgement or the way I senses people should behave over here when a case like this arises is to either first settle the whole issues internally, like sending them pm before creating post about it here. Again, for the person who gave the neutral tag; well, I think it's also important to correct someone on their comments post, and tell the reason what they said is wrong and possibly they should reference the correct words where its clearly explain the whole thing to the wrong poster. When such person has refused to take correction maybe after 1-2 post or always sounding to be correct then a neutral tag should be implemented on their profile so that corrections can be taken. I think we need to have patient when using the DT power because that is not a guaranteed way of doing things or exercising their powers.

[nutildah]

User Satofan44 gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back

He's right -- you are a spammer and you write like you have multiple accounts here. Your very first posts are about merits, recently-woken up accounts & the trust system. There's no way this is your only account. So you are splitting your brain between multiple accounts, writing lord knows how many posts each week between them, which means your posts are bound to use less than 100% of your own intelligence.

Just stick to posting cricket match summaries & stop trying to inject posts in topics you don't really understand.

When such person has refused to take correction maybe after 1-2 post or always sounding to be correct then a neutral tag should be implemented on their profile so that corrections can be taken. I think we need to have patient when using the DT power because that is not a guaranteed way of doing things or exercising their powers.

The first sentence is usually the correct way to go about it, refraining from leaving tags for a single & mild offense. With the 2nd sentence: Satofan44 didn't know he was on DT or had "DT power." But he should know that his ratings are now seen by default on the forum.

[Perfectbaby]

User Satofan44 gave me a neutral feedback stating spammer a while back

He's right -- you are a spammer and you write like you have multiple accounts here. Your very first posts are about merits, recently-woken up accounts & the trust system. There's no way this is your only account. So you are splitting your brain between multiple accounts, writing lord knows how many posts each week between them, which means your posts are bound to use less than 100% of your own intelligence.

Just stick to posting cricket match summaries & stop trying to inject posts in topics you don't really understand.

When such person has refused to take correction maybe after 1-2 post or always sounding to be correct then a neutral tag should be implemented on their profile so that corrections can be taken. I think we need to have patient when using the DT power because that is not a guaranteed way of doing things or exercising their powers.

The first sentence is usually the correct way to go about it, refraining from leaving tags for a single & mild offense. With the 2nd sentence: Satofan44 didn't know he was on DT or had "DT power." But he should know that his ratings are now seen by default on the forum.

¹These are things people don't usually understand from this forum and I don't do it for any reason, trying to jump into what I don't know due to trying to complete my post quota. I would rather stick to the area which I am more conversant with than going the section which I don't know, and again I don't try to force myself with what I don't comprehend in other to just get involved in their discussions.
Though, I am not DT but I have been studying the purpose of DT system even when I am made a DT I wouldn't for any reason go violating the system.

²So serious? Then how would they know they are made DT, for instance I am using BPIP on my web and it displays everyone who is DT on the forum and their Default Level (1 or 2) and you think he wouldn't have any idea of that, again was thinking that the telegram bot also conveyed information about DTs, that is when someone is added won't they get notified on the bot?

[nutildah]

²So serious? Then how would they know they are made DT, for instance I am using BPIP on my web and it displays everyone who is DT on the forum and their Default Level (1 or 2) and you think he wouldn't have any idea of that, again was thinking that the telegram bot also conveyed information about DTs, that is when someone is added won't they get notified on the bot?

Yeah well he probably doesn't use either one of those things. Most people don't.

[Ambatman]

As for the feedback, there is no chance that I will remove it. The only correct thing to do is to discuss things that you have (real) knowledge in

I understand where you are coming from and the danger wrong information could cause in the technical board.
But there are times that what we believe was right could be wrong
I have being there and have learnt from it because someone pointed it out and corrected me.

Saying that LN is centralized because many people use it wrongly is a lie

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546273.msg65474126#msg65474126
Did face similar issue here where the OP insisted that LN was centralized.
I knew they had their reason even if it maybe wrong but a tag for such a lil bit much
Maybe consistent sharing of false information could be justified.

[Perfectbaby]

²So serious? Then how would they know they are made DT, for instance I am using BPIP on my web and it displays everyone who is DT on the forum and their Default Level (1 or 2) and you think he wouldn't have any idea of that, again was thinking that the telegram bot also conveyed information about DTs, that is when someone is added won't they get notified on the bot?

Yeah well he probably doesn't use either one of those things. Most people don't.

Okay, thank you for your feedback.
Now that he is mad DT, to me it would be better he removed the tag and learn more about how to DT systems. In my opinion, before adding anyone on our trust-list it would be better such person(s) understand how the system are being used before adding them to avoid personal sentiments or self interest to destroy someone account without any properly using their power rightfully.

[LoyceV]

it would be better he removed the tag and learn more about how to DT systems. In my opinion, before adding anyone on our trust-list it would be better such person(s) understand how the system are being used before adding them

That's the responsibility of the DT1-user who added Satofan44 to DT2. I assume he wanted to see this feedback by default, but that shouldn't be a reason to remove said feedback.