Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance

[Rating Place]

If someone feels that have been treated unfairly, they could bring it to the alliance.

And what would the alliance do about it?  The only method available is spamming the facts over and over until someone changes their mind.  And that rarely happens no matter how clearly you point out scams.  People do not have the same morals or values and a lot of people view lying to names on a screen as just a part of surviving.  

The alliance could take a vote. If more than 50% of the alliance felt it unfair, then all would give negative trust against the offender for trust abuse until taken down.

Negative trust is now being used as a weapon instead of it’s original purpose.

[Vod]

The alliance could take a vote. If more than 50% of the alliance felt it unfair, then all would give negative trust against the offender for trust abuse until taken down.

The "unofficial" alliance is much more powerful - around 500? of them left me negative trust.  Other DT members have received better coordinated attacks.  Defeats the purpose of a fair and impartial rating, which is why the alliance will have no power, and no clout.

[yahoo62278]

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

On top of that, the idea is being supported by those with more than 1 negative tag which should IMO tells me they are only on board hoping they get their tags removed, once that chance is gone they'll lose interest.

Just some observations I've found interesting.

[Rating Place]

The alliance could take a vote. If more than 50% of the alliance felt it unfair, then all would give negative trust against the offender for trust abuse until taken down.

The "unofficial" alliance is much more powerful - around 500? of them left me negative trust.  Other DT members have received better coordinated attacks.  Defeats the purpose of a fair and impartial rating, which is why the alliance will have no power, and no clout.

You stated the problem. The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances. Negative trust is no longer a warning not to transact with a person. It’s now a weapon being used against those you dislike or have disagreements.

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

On top of that, the idea is being supported by those with more than 1 negative tag which should IMO tells me they are only on board hoping they get their tags removed, once that chance is gone they'll lose interest.

Just some observations I've found interesting.

These are the people that have been treated unfairly by negative trust. They need an arena to fight back.

Of course it’s self serving. Notblox says he’s going to teach me a lesson and gives me negative trust. Holy says a twist words and gives me negative trust.

[nutildah]

The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

Its literally all checks and balances. If someone gets too out of line, they lose DT strength. This has happened to forum members of all stature, big and small.

Negative trust is no longer a warning not to transact with a person. It’s now a weapon being used against those you dislike or have disagreements.

Its always been this way, although its supposed to not be. And red trust doesn't just mean "don't transact with this person," it also means "you don't trust this person when it comes to financial matters," in that they could cost you money.

[Rating Place]

The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

Its literally all checks and balances. If someone gets too out of line, they lose DT strength. This has happened to forum members of all stature, big and small.

Negative trust is no longer a warning not to transact with a person. It’s now a weapon being used against those you dislike or have disagreements.

Its always been this way, although its supposed to not be. And red trust doesn't just mean "don't transact with this person," it also means "you don't trust this person when it comes to financial matters," in that they could cost you money.

Edit - if the current system can’t fix my negative trust, it would be nice to have another body that could take a look.

[Vod]

You stated the problem. The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

The "unofficial alliance" is a random group of DT0 members, just like the "official" alliance.  The checks and balances are the DT members.

Edit - if the current system can’t fix my negative trust, it would be nice to have another body that could take a look.

Official Internet Complaint Portals by Country

North America

• United States — FCC Consumer Complaints (broadband/telecom) | FTC Report Fraud (scams, privacy) | IC3.gov (FBI Internet Crime)
  
• Canada — CRTC Online Form | Competition Bureau
  
• Mexico — IFT (Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones)
  

Europe

• United Kingdom — Ofcom | Action Fraud (cybercrime)
  
• Germany — BNetzA | BfDI (data protection)
  
• France — ARCEP | CNIL (privacy)
  
• Netherlands — ACM | Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
  
• Ireland — ComReg
  
• Spain — CNMC
  
• Italy — AGCOM | Garante Privacy
  
• Sweden — PTS
  
• Norway — Nkom
  
• Finland — Traficom
  
• EU-wide — Your Europe Advice | EDPB (GDPR/privacy)
  

Asia-Pacific

• Australia — ACCC Report a Consumer Issue | eSafety Commissioner (online abuse)
  
• New Zealand — Commerce Commission | Netsafe
  
• Japan — MIC (総務省) | Consumer Affairs Agency
  
• South Korea — KCC | KISA (reporting center)
  
• Singapore — IMDA | PDPC
  
• India — IN-CERT (cyber incidents) | Consumer Commission
  
• Hong Kong — OFCA | PCPD (privacy)
  

Other Regions

• Brazil — Anatel | ANPD (privacy)
  
• South Africa — ICASA | SAHRC (POPIA)
  
• Russia — Roskomnadzor
  
• UAE — TDRA
  
• Israel — Ministry of Communications
  

[Rating Place]

You stated the problem. The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

The "unofficial alliance" is a random group of DT0 members, just like the "official" alliance.  The checks and balances are the DT members.

Edit - if the current system can’t fix my negative trust, it would be nice to have another body that could take a look.

Official Internet Complaint Portals by Country

North America

• United States — FCC Consumer Complaints (broadband/telecom) | FTC Report Fraud (scams, privacy) | IC3.gov (FBI Internet Crime)
  
• Canada — CRTC Online Form | Competition Bureau
  
• Mexico — IFT (Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones)
  

Europe

• United Kingdom — Ofcom | Action Fraud (cybercrime)
  
• Germany — BNetzA | BfDI (data protection)
  
• France — ARCEP | CNIL (privacy)
  
• Netherlands — ACM | Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
  
• Ireland — ComReg
  
• Spain — CNMC
  
• Italy — AGCOM | Garante Privacy
  
• Sweden — PTS
  
• Norway — Nkom
  
• Finland — Traficom
  
• EU-wide — Your Europe Advice | EDPB (GDPR/privacy)
  

Asia-Pacific

• Australia — ACCC Report a Consumer Issue | eSafety Commissioner (online abuse)
  
• New Zealand — Commerce Commission | Netsafe
  
• Japan — MIC (総務省) | Consumer Affairs Agency
  
• South Korea — KCC | KISA (reporting center)
  
• Singapore — IMDA | PDPC
  
• India — IN-CERT (cyber incidents) | Consumer Commission
  
• Hong Kong — OFCA | PCPD (privacy)
  

Other Regions

• Brazil — Anatel | ANPD (privacy)
  
• South Africa — ICASA | SAHRC (POPIA)
  
• Russia — Roskomnadzor
  
• UAE — TDRA
  
• Israel — Ministry of Communications
  

Thanks for that information, I didn’t know that.

With my case with holy with the red tag that’s still up, the majority disagreed with the red tag. There should be a way to force removal when the majority says it’s unearned.

[Vod]

With my case with holy with the red tag that’s still up, the majority disagreed with the red tag. There should be a way to force removal when the majority says it’s unearned.

There is.  He'll be removed from DT in 4 days as long as the DT1 members did their job and ~ed him.  And if those DT members say its unearned but refuse to tag him, then they themselves will get removed the next month.   It's normally a self cleaning system without a douche.   

[yahoo62278]

You stated the problem. The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

The "unofficial alliance" is a random group of DT0 members, just like the "official" alliance.  The checks and balances are the DT members.

Edit - if the current system can’t fix my negative trust, it would be nice to have another body that could take a look.

Official Internet Complaint Portals by Country

North America

• United States — FCC Consumer Complaints (broadband/telecom) | FTC Report Fraud (scams, privacy) | IC3.gov (FBI Internet Crime)
  
• Canada — CRTC Online Form | Competition Bureau
  
• Mexico — IFT (Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones)
  

Europe

• United Kingdom — Ofcom | Action Fraud (cybercrime)
  
• Germany — BNetzA | BfDI (data protection)
  
• France — ARCEP | CNIL (privacy)
  
• Netherlands — ACM | Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
  
• Ireland — ComReg
  
• Spain — CNMC
  
• Italy — AGCOM | Garante Privacy
  
• Sweden — PTS
  
• Norway — Nkom
  
• Finland — Traficom
  
• EU-wide — Your Europe Advice | EDPB (GDPR/privacy)
  

Asia-Pacific

• Australia — ACCC Report a Consumer Issue | eSafety Commissioner (online abuse)
  
• New Zealand — Commerce Commission | Netsafe
  
• Japan — MIC (総務省) | Consumer Affairs Agency
  
• South Korea — KCC | KISA (reporting center)
  
• Singapore — IMDA | PDPC
  
• India — IN-CERT (cyber incidents) | Consumer Commission
  
• Hong Kong — OFCA | PCPD (privacy)
  

Other Regions

• Brazil — Anatel | ANPD (privacy)
  
• South Africa — ICASA | SAHRC (POPIA)
  
• Russia — Roskomnadzor
  
• UAE — TDRA
  
• Israel — Ministry of Communications
  

Thanks for that information, I didn’t know that.

With my case with holy with the red tag that’s still up, the majority disagreed with the red tag. There should be a way to force removal when the majority says it’s unearned.

We are getting off topic somewhat and you once again are showing that you just like to keep beating a dead horse. This type of behavior is why you were tagged in the 1st place. Just learn to shut your mouth sometimes and you 2 would have never had anything other than a disagreement, but you being you, had to keep poking the bear and poke poke poke til someone said fuck it n tagged you.

Instead of complaining everywhere you see an opportunity, keep it to your thread you locked.

We all know the DT system is shit at times and a chunk of the people on DT are scared IMO to have their own voice. Scared of retaliation, scared to get kicked off DT, scared they lose what power they think they have. Before when we had 12 DT1 users and a handful of DT2 IMO was a better system, but now we have this retarded lottery and way too many people who live a life of fear and corruption are eligible to be in DT.

Are they bad people? No, they just will allow politics to run their decisions and that's not good for DT at all.

Getting back on topic of why I made this reply, i took a look at holydarkness trust list and see that you yourself haven't ~him. If you don't trust his opinion, that should have probably been a good start for you vs leaving him a feedback. I also removed holydarkness from my trust list as after looking at his inclusion of rollinsweet I do not think he needs a spot on DT, least not IMO. That's some poor judgement to add a user who doesn't even participate in forum politics. I have not decided if I will ~him, but it's very possible.  I will also be ~ you as you are not stable enough for DT eligibility either IMO.

I am posting it publicly not to be a prick to you or anyone else, but so you and holy can see the reasoning behind my decision. Will others follow suit? Who knows, I am not their daddy and cannot tell them what to do. You might try to learn to grow thicker skin and not be so argumentative with people over a subject that you really cannot do anything about. You can have an opinion, why do you need everyone to conform to your thinking only?

[Revolution2025]

If we support one defensive alliance, does that mean we should defend any other defensive alliances? What happens if a group of members get together to form an alliance and cite this particular thread as the reason why they too deserve support?

I reiterate my advice, there is a trust system already in place. If members feel it should be updated/modified then create a thread about that instead of creating alliances that cause more friction between members.

i know that this retard will be scared of something like this because he is among those who gives incorrect negative trust

lad you shouldn't be afraid of an alliance like this because very soon you will become useless in this forum since you have nothing to offer apart from fake detective work and issuing false feedbacks.

Negative trust is no longer a warning not to transact with a person. It’s now a weapon being used against those you dislike or have disagreements.

Its always been this way, although its supposed to not be. And red trust doesn't just mean "don't transact with this person," it also means "you don't trust this person when it comes to financial matters," in that they could cost you money.

can you imagine what is coming out from a DT1 member, you are just contradicting yourself if you don't know.

i checked what will lead to a negative trust, it is basically for trade risk, that is, if you think or have evidence that trading with a user is risky.

''don't transact with a person'' covers financial matters and other circumstances that will lead to financial risks.

i think you should start adult school please

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/04/28/UyF2Ng.jpeg

@holydarkness @notblox1, does this comments from both of you worth issuing a negative trust? who even brought the idea of the trust system.

[Rating Place]

You stated the problem. The unofficial alliance has become too powerful. There aren’t any checks or balances.

The "unofficial alliance" is a random group of DT0 members, just like the "official" alliance.  The checks and balances are the DT members.

Edit - if the current system can’t fix my negative trust, it would be nice to have another body that could take a look.o

Official Internet Complaint Portals by Country

North America

• United States — FCC Consumer Complaints (broadband/telecom) | FTC Report Fraud (scams, privacy) | IC3.gov (FBI Internet Crime)
  
• Canada — CRTC Online Form | Competition Bureau
  
• Mexico — IFT (Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones)
  

Europe

• United Kingdom — Ofcom | Action Fraud (cybercrime)
  
• Germany — BNetzA | BfDI (data protection)
  
• France — ARCEP | CNIL (privacy)
  
• Netherlands — ACM | Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
  
• Ireland — ComReg
  
• Spain — CNMC
  
• Italy — AGCOM | Garante Privacy
  
• Sweden — PTS
  
• Norway — Nkom
  
• Finland — Traficom
  
• EU-wide — Your Europe Advice | EDPB (GDPR/privacy)
  

Asia-Pacific

• Australia — ACCC Report a Consumer Issue | eSafety Commissioner (online abuse)
  
• New Zealand — Commerce Commission | Netsafe
  
• Japan — MIC (総務省) | Consumer Affairs Agency
  
• South Korea — KCC | KISA (reporting center)
  
• Singapore — IMDA | PDPC
  
• India — IN-CERT (cyber incidents) | Consumer Commission
  
• Hong Kong — OFCA | PCPD (privacy)
  

Other Regions

• Brazil — Anatel | ANPD (privacy)
  
• South Africa — ICASA | SAHRC (POPIA)
  
• Russia — Roskomnadzor
  
• UAE — TDRA
  
• Israel — Ministry of Communications
  

Thanks for that information, I didn’t know that.

With my case with holy with the red tag that’s still up, the majority disagreed with the red tag. There should be a way to force removal when the majority says it’s unearned.

We are getting off topic somewhat and you once again are showing that you just like to keep beating a dead horse. This type of behavior is why you were tagged in the 1st place. Just learn to shut your mouth sometimes and you 2 would have never had anything other than a disagreement, but you being you, had to keep poking the bear and poke poke poke til someone said fuck it n tagged you.

Instead of complaining everywhere you see an opportunity, keep it to your thread you locked.

We all know the DT system is shit at times and a chunk of the people on DT are scared IMO to have their own voice. Scared of retaliation, scared to get kicked off DT, scared they lose what power they think they have. Before when we had 12 DT1 users and a handful of DT2 IMO was a better system, but now we have this retarded lottery and way too many people who live a life of fear and corruption are eligible to be in DT.

Are they bad people? No, they just will allow politics to run their decisions and that's not good for DT at all.

Getting back on topic of why I made this reply, i took a look at holydarkness trust list and see that you yourself haven't ~him. If you don't trust his opinion, that should have probably been a good start for you vs leaving him a feedback. I also removed holydarkness from my trust list as after looking at his inclusion of rollinsweet I do not think he needs a spot on DT, least not IMO. That's some poor judgement to add a user who doesn't even participate in forum politics. I have not decided if I will ~him, but it's very possible.  I will also be ~ you as you are not stable enough for DT eligibility either IMO.

I am posting it publicly not to be a prick to you or anyone else, but so you and holy can see the reasoning behind my decision. Will others follow suit? Who knows, I am not their daddy and cannot tell them what to do. You might try to learn to grow thicker skin and not be so argumentative with people over a subject that you really cannot do anything about. You can have an opinion, why do you need everyone to conform to your thinking only?

This is the problem. Holy is the guy starting the trouble and people like you pile on. It’s exactly why an alliance is needed.  Look what he did yesterday bumping a guy with 10 merits to DT so it would show up negative on my account. If I shut up, that trust would still be there. As far as holy not on my distrust list, I never use it. No one is there.

It’s much more than a disagreement. Money is being stolen from winning players and holy enables it by agreeing with the book. I don’t get in to personal squabbles without money being lost. Holy is the first in 12 years. It’s over stolen money. Read the trust I gave to holy. The only negative one up.

[LoyceV]

This is a great idea. The alliance would work as an oversight to DT abuse. If someone feels that have been treated unfairly, they could bring it to the alliance.

Every DT-member can have a look at unfair feedback if they want, but it's time-consuming and there's too much drama to look at everything. If an "Alliance" (only) guarantees its members they take the time at each other's cases, that may even work. But looking at the OP, even users who never left any feedback are allowed in, and there's no reason to assume their judgement is worth it.

The alliance could take a vote. If more than 50% of the alliance felt it unfair, then all would give negative trust against the offender for trust abuse until taken down.

That sounds like Trust abuse.

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

I can't decide yet if he's just trolling.
On Saturday, when theymos creates his weekly Trust list data dump, we can see if those "Alliance members" have included each other on their Trust list. That's the least they can do if they suddenly Trust each other's judgement enough to form an Alliance, right?

As far as holy not on my distrust list, I never use it. No one is there.

You complain an awful lot about a system you don't even want to use properly yourself. Why do you expect others to solve your mess if you don't even want to vote for members yourself?

[Rating Place]

This is a great idea. The alliance would work as an oversight to DT abuse. If someone feels that have been treated unfairly, they could bring it to the alliance.

Every DT-member can have a look at unfair feedback if they want, but it's time-consuming and there's too much drama to look at everything. If an "Alliance" (only) guarantees its members they take the time at each other's cases, that may even work. But looking at the OP, even users who never left any feedback are allowed in, and there's no reason to assume their judgement is worth it.

The alliance could take a vote. If more than 50% of the alliance felt it unfair, then all would give negative trust against the offender for trust abuse until taken down.

That sounds like Trust abuse.

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

I can't decide yet if he's just trolling.
On Saturday, when theymos creates his weekly Trust list data dump, we can see if those "Alliance members" have included each other on their Trust list. That's the least they can do if they suddenly Trust each other's judgement enough to form an Alliance, right?

As far as holy not on my distrust list, I never use it. No one is there.

You complain an awful lot about a system you don't even want to use properly yourself. Why do you expect others to solve your mess if you don't even want to vote for members yourself?

In 12 years show me where I complain other than notblox and holy. Look at my untrusted feedback. If I were so bad, there would be a lot up there. I post about sportsbooks, that’s it.

[Excimer]

Alliance of trust abusers  

Theymos, please comment what you think about this "alliance"

I am sure that Theymos will not support this crap


Unlike DT, which is transparent and controlled, this "alliance" of yours is not controlled by anything, and if malicious farms join it, manipulation of the trust will be widespread.

[DireWolfM14]

Are we all certain it's not TECSHARE that's come back from the grave?

At the risk of you and your allies getting defensive; allying oneself with spammers, campaign cheaters, account farmers, and a literal trust-abusing hypocrite who is incapable of any introspection isn't the flex you might have aimed for.

BTW, since you seem to be locking all your other threads before anyone has a chance to ask, how about a signed message?  You know, to protect the account in front of the person. 

[JollyGood]

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

It is very odd. I would like to the opportunity to welcome back any member that wanted to leave (for reasons that he gave) but had a change of circumstances and decided to return to the forum. On that note, he should be welcomed back but the whole thing related to his return and immediate creation of the alliance (without the knowledge of those listed as co-founders), is really odd.

On top of that, the idea is being supported by those with more than 1 negative tag which should IMO tells me they are only on board hoping they get their tags removed, once that chance is gone they'll lose interest.

This is a crucial point. Having said that, is there a difference if members receive negative tags before or after joining the alliance? What possible reason (or motive) could any member have for wanting to join this alliance?

Getting back on topic of why I made this reply, i took a look at holydarkness trust list and see that you yourself haven't ~him. If you don't trust his opinion, that should have probably been a good start for you vs leaving him a feedback. I also removed holydarkness from my trust list as after looking at his inclusion of rollinsweet I do not think he needs a spot on DT, least not IMO. That's some poor judgement to add a user who doesn't even participate in forum politics. I have not decided if I will ~him, but it's very possible.  I will also be ~ you as you are not stable enough for DT eligibility either IMO.

I think he withdrew that trust inclusion by removing the account, it was clearly a bad decision on his part. If any member were to look at the situation from a neutral perspective, they will probably conclude the rollinsweet account should not be added by any DT member.

I am posting it publicly not to be a prick to you or anyone else, but so you and holy can see the reasoning behind my decision. Will others follow suit? Who knows, I am not their daddy and cannot tell them what to do. You might try to learn to grow thicker skin and not be so argumentative with people over a subject that you really cannot do anything about. You can have an opinion, why do you need everyone to conform to your thinking only?

Once again yahoo62278 brings sensibility to a thread that has been heading off-topic.

[Rating Place]

I find it very odd that 1miau comes back and announces this alliance deal and names people co founders who then say they had no idea.

It is very odd. I would like to the opportunity to welcome back any member that wanted to leave (for reasons that he gave) but had a change of circumstances and decided to return to the forum. On that note, he should be welcomed back but the whole thing related to his return and immediate creation of the alliance (without the knowledge of those listed as co-founders), is really odd.

On top of that, the idea is being supported by those with more than 1 negative tag which should IMO tells me they are only on board hoping they get their tags removed, once that chance is gone they'll lose interest.

This is a crucial point. Having said that, is there a difference if members receive negative tags before or after joining the alliance? What possible reason (or motive) could any member have for wanting to join this alliance?

Getting back on topic of why I made this reply, i took a look at holydarkness trust list and see that you yourself haven't ~him. If you don't trust his opinion, that should have probably been a good start for you vs leaving him a feedback. I also removed holydarkness from my trust list as after looking at his inclusion of rollinsweet I do not think he needs a spot on DT, least not IMO. That's some poor judgement to add a user who doesn't even participate in forum politics. I have not decided if I will ~him, but it's very possible.  I will also be ~ you as you are not stable enough for DT eligibility either IMO.

I think he withdrew that trust inclusion by removing the account, it was clearly a bad decision on his part. If any member were to look at the situation from a neutral perspective, they will probably conclude the rollinsweet account should not be added by any DT member.

I am posting it publicly not to be a prick to you or anyone else, but so you and holy can see the reasoning behind my decision. Will others follow suit? Who knows, I am not their daddy and cannot tell them what to do. You might try to learn to grow thicker skin and not be so argumentative with people over a subject that you really cannot do anything about. You can have an opinion, why do you need everyone to conform to your thinking only?

Once again yahoo62278 brings sensibility to a thread that has been heading off-topic.

I disagree with the last part. The only reason people were getting paid winnings is being argumentative. When enough people spoke up, the books paid winnings, even though holy sided with the book. It’s the only way to get people paid.

If there are many voices in an alliance, abuse may stop happening.

[JollyGood]

As this has not already been done, I think it should be as soon as possible in order to put aside any doubt that any members might have.

This certainly seems to a reasonable request as the OP has returned to the forum after a gap (and after stating he was effectively never coming back). I think asking for a signed message from a known address should not be taken as a offence and should be provided promptly.

BTW, since you seem to be locking all your other threads before anyone has a chance to ask, how about a signed message?  You know, to protect the account in front of the person. 

[Trollflix]

Im honestly looking forward to the pure entertainment this alliance is gonna provide. Its funny this alliance filled with shady member, especially when you got KingsDen in the mix with literal 2 BTC scam warnings all over his profile. then theres Kazkaz27, such a saint for calling people "idiot" with free negative tags. Its a smart strategy really: just team up with other "saint" so you can pretend being defender Im defnitely grabbing my popcorn to watch this whole group turn into the exact same toxic, coordinated mob they claim they're fighting.