Bitcoin-Police trust system abuse.

[KingZee]

I'm really surprised that nobody started this before.

I know there aren't any rules on the forum, just general good behavior.

But if they were, then may I state the rules Bitcoin-Police has broken :

1. Extreme abuse of the trust system, I may stat myself as an example (even if almost EVERY user in the lending sub, is apparently a victim) :

 -I post a thread in the lending sub, asking for a good amount of btc to fund my project. I even asked for people that if not in btc, I accept asset funds as in developing skills, or hosting service, which are the things I need for my project. He instantly posts his famous 100% SCAM-POTENTIAL, in extra of calling me a fat person.

 -Not being really familiar with the trust system, I never realised he actually left me negative feedback, since I only saw 0/0 Trust on my Profile, but in extra to hijacking my Lending thread, he gave me negative feedback.

 -After a while, I managed to get 20$ from a deal I did with someone, but he paid me in Neteller money, so I posted in the Curr. EX. sub for someone to trade with me, I didn't really find anyone trustworthy, and eventually managed to trade the money for BTC on Localbitcoins, but then Mr. Bitcoin-Police man comes along, insults me again, and calls me a scammer.

 Who exacty does he think he is? I have never scammed anyone in my entire life. In fact I'm a highly trusted escrow in another Altcoin forum, why do I come here and get -Trust because of some shithead playing the fat cop with a gun and a donut?

 2. Actively trying to look for his scam door out of the forums :

  -On a few threads he offers "Lending" services himself, asking people to send risky amounts as a collateral to him lending them bitcoin. He claims he is trusted because he "busted" many "scammers".

 3. Forum spamming :

 -If anything, ALL his posts are spam. There isn't anything easier than accusing EVERYONE who tries to ask for loan/trade/exchange and pointing fingers at them calling them scammers. In fact it's the easiest way I can think of collecting post count.

 4. Agressive behaviour :

 -And in extra for his accusations, all his posts are extremely offensive and rude. He insults everyone that retorques to him and has the brains of a 5-year old.

 5. Using an irritating bold red font :

 - If I were a forum mod, I would make this a bannable offense.


I am kindly asking any forum moderator to take action against him. At least a warning should be given to this user that ruins other trustable members reputation in these forums. Thank you for reading.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Yes, his post is a rude-like one. Anyway, he posted it because you didn't provide collateral and it is a long term and need higher money.

I don't think it is possible as his posts aren't insubstantial though it is a little rude sometimes but I have seen such posts in this forum. He is posting SCAM-POTENTIAL = 100% in posts that are likely to be turned to scam anytime but 100% isn't a good thing.

   ~~MZ~~

[KingZee]

Yes, his post is a rude-like one. Anyway, he posted it because you didn't provide collateral and it is a long term and need higher money.

I don't think it is possible as his posts aren't insubstantial though it is a little rude sometimes but I have seen such posts in this forum. He is posting SCAM-POTENTIAL = 100% in posts that are likely to be turned to scam anytime but 100% isn't a good thing.

   ~~MZ~~

You cannot simply judge people because some of them cannot provide collaterals. Yes, it is risky to give them money. But other than blatant, plain scams; like ponzis, pyramid schemes, obvious fake accounts looking for victims,etc... ANY person is likely to scam ANYONE at ANY moment, with or without collateral. It remains a simple question of personal trust, when X person lends money to Y person.

So unless the borrowing side already is proven to have criminal records elsewhere, or is an account made just yesterday asking for huge amounts of bitcoin, any judgement on that person is purely an assumption, with no proof to be based on.

So when someone calls you a scammer, gives you negative trust, ruins your reputation, and insults you on top of all that, based on a simple post asking for a loan, and another for a trade?... That's just plain outrageous.

[Muhammed Zakir]

You cannot simply judge people because some of them cannot provide collaterals. Yes, it is risky to give them money. But other than blatant, plain scams; like ponzis, pyramid schemes, obvious fake accounts looking for victims,etc... ANY person is likely to scam ANYONE at ANY moment, with or without collateral. It remains a simple question of personal trust, when X person lends money to Y person.

So unless the borrowing side already is proven to have criminal records elsewhere, or is an account made just yesterday asking for huge amounts of bitcoin, any judgement on that person is purely an assumption, with no proof to be based on.

So when someone calls you a scammer, gives you negative trust, ruins your reputation, and insults you on top of all that, based on a simple post asking for a loan, and another for a trade?... That's just plain outrageous.

True! But his posts and his -ve trust won't do anything at all. It is better to ignore him because I don't think there will be a strict action from a staff/mod/admin.

   ~~MZ~~

[hilariousandco]

Bitcoin-Police's feedback is worthless and always will be. Half of his 'scam busting' is just him stating the obvious or repeating what somone has already stated, the other half is just whatever he doesn't like the look of or on a hunch. He's essentially just trolling and seems to be quite the racist and xenophobe:

Newbie clown asking for loan. Of course no collatreal. Seems to be a very aggresive Paki!
This east european retard mentally unstable.Keeps on asking for loans although he has been flagged multiple times!
This is the same filthy Paki scum using the account "Madras". This clown tries to play Bitcoin-Police.But I am the real Bitcoin-Police.Step aside Pakiboy.
This African Ape is asking for a 10 BTC loan.I mean come on - 10 BTC? You gotta be shitting me,right???

Why would you take anyone who leaves those sort of feedbacks seriously?

[Arrogantx]

Just brush it off your shoulders, I can't see anyone taking those comments seriously anyway. But dude does seem out of line.

[IceTurk]

He has been doing it for a while, he just a little butthurt kid.

[stellar69]

His trust isnt valuable! Dont care about him!
He's just a kid. But sometimes I find him funny. He's kind of joker of the forum

[MadZ]

Most people have him on ignore by now, no one takes his feedback seriously. Don't worry about it.

[Superhitech]

His posts are rude, that's for sure, he could point them out in a nicer manner. Sometimes he does find and mark a real scam, but as someone already said,

Bitcoin-Police's feedback is worthless and always will be. Half of his 'scam busting' is just him stating the obvious or repeating what somone has already stated, the other half is just whatever he doesn't like the look of or on a hunch. He's essentially just trolling and seems to be quite the racist and xenophobe:

Sometimes, he marks legit people as "scams" and doesn't retract the comment, he also does it in a rude way, calling people "retards" and such.

I hope nobody gives him positive trust so he can mark others as scams with red trust, because that would end up into one big trust system abuse.

Maybe hilariousandco can give him some negative? For maybe "abusing trust, calls people scams without any proof to back it up"

[Blazed]

I do not think hilarious is on the trusted list so it would not show up unless you clicked "untrusted feedback". I think after all the recent events anyone with weighted trust will be really careful leaving feedback...I know I will be!

[Quickseller]

I do not think hilarious is on the trusted list so it would not show up unless you clicked "untrusted feedback". I think after all the recent events anyone with weighted trust will be really careful leaving feedback...I know I will be!

He is trusted by badbear so his trust would show up. However what bitcoinpolice is doing is not untrustworthy even though it probably breaks the rules via trolling and is extremely immature, not to mention he fact that he only calls out the obvious scams (although he has started to call out things that may or may not actually be scams)

[Vortex20000]

Two points.

1) Vod and Tomatocage bust scammers. Bitcoin-Police busts everybody.

2) Scam-potential simply means the potential to scam.

**Computer**

Omg KILL-POTENTIAL 100% but only if it drops on your head.

His English isn't even up to par.

[TECSHARE]

I do not think hilarious is on the trusted list so it would not show up unless you clicked "untrusted feedback". I think after all the recent events anyone with weighted trust will be really careful leaving feedback...I know I will be!

Yes they sure did a nice job as using me as the "or else" example didn't they? Better do what we say OR ELSE we will remove your default trust like Tecshare. I am glad they could freely appropriate all my hard work on gaining trust to themselves and act as if it was simply granted to me to justify taking it away.

[hilariousandco]

I do not think hilarious is on the trusted list so it would not show up unless you clicked "untrusted feedback". I think after all the recent events anyone with weighted trust will be really careful leaving feedback...I know I will be!

Yes they sure did a nice job as using me as the "or else" example didn't they? Better do what we say OR ELSE we will remove your default trust like Tecshare. I am glad they could freely appropriate all my hard work on gaining trust to themselves and act as if it was simply granted to me to justify taking it away.

Or you could just toughen up your skin and ego and not leave negative feedback just because someone dared to say something you didn't like? Should trust abusers not be removed? It's a trust network and people are added and removed as appropriate. There's also nothing to stop you from getting put back on the trust list eventually (or even subsequently removed from it again), but going on about this over and over isn't going to do you any favours and if anything it will have more of a negative effect on your 'reputation' than merely being removed from defaulttrust ever would. None of your feedback that you have built up has been effected anyway, just your ability to leave it and that was your own doing.

[TECSHARE]

I do not think hilarious is on the trusted list so it would not show up unless you clicked "untrusted feedback". I think after all the recent events anyone with weighted trust will be really careful leaving feedback...I know I will be!

Yes they sure did a nice job as using me as the "or else" example didn't they? Better do what we say OR ELSE we will remove your default trust like Tecshare. I am glad they could freely appropriate all my hard work on gaining trust to themselves and act as if it was simply granted to me to justify taking it away.

Or you could just toughen up your skin and ego and not leave negative feedback just because someone dared to say something you didn't like? Should trust abusers not be removed? It's a trust network and people are added and removed as appropriate. There's also nothing to stop you from getting put back on the trust list eventually (or even subsequently removed from it again), but going on about this over and over isn't going to do you any favours and if anything it will have more of a negative effect on your 'reputation' than merely being removed from default trust ever would. None of your feedback that you have built up has been effected anyway, just your ability to leave it and that was your own doing.

You keep saying it as if he just annoyed me a little... he was clearly there to harass me. If he was there to make a legitimate point about the product what were the insults for? Why continue on for post after post? He also claimed he deleted his posts, he deleted one then continued after it was made clear his presence was unwelcome.

The point is that the staff coerced a person whom you trust, and who trusted me, to remove me under threat of his own removal. He didn't remove me because he didn't trust me any more, he removed me because he was DIRECTED TO. That is clearly using the default trust as a punitive enforcement tool rather than what it was intended and purported to be - a way for users to comment on each other's reputation, practices, and behavior. Additionally its funny that some how I am trusted, but still I don't have enough authority to leave my own trust freely like everyone else here does default trust list or not. You preach to me about a single trust dispute yet you use the entire system itself as a cudgel to force trusted users to comply with your commands under threat of loss of their hard earned trust.