Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 03:37:14 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust  (Read 15463 times)
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 12:26:43 PM by SpanishSoldier
#1

Disclaimer: I did not know at first that Mabsark is not in the DefaultTrust. He was on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, who is on DefaultTrust. Now, as CanaryInTheMine has acted at his will, I am free to escalate the issue. Henceforth, I am updating my request. The original request is kept intact as you will find below.

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18614 (CanaryInTheMine)

I used to know CanaryInTheMine as a reputed member of the community. I am not a very knowledgeable person regarding his activities. Though, there are many posts in this thread suggesting partiality in his judgement, I would like to point a certain post that I find very to the point and logical to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust.

-snip-

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

-snip-
I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127  additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him.

One very good example of this is the user suchmoon. I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine

I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust.

If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy. Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.


The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock.

There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text.




*********************************Original Post************************************

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. Interestingly, he has not left -ve feedback on Hashie, who has already made a scam by deleting the user's referral data from their database. The reason behind this is Hashie is now reselling AM hash.

So, Mabsark is clearly showing partial attitude in trust. Here is another guy mentioning the same...

So far I have no complaints.

Only thing pathetic here is how competitors are abusing trust system and giving negative feedback based on their assumptions. When they do something wrong then it's ok.
"I will give you negative feedback unless you give me info I want from you" - it's really fucked up Mabsark.

Hence, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
1571629034
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571629034

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571629034
Reply with quote  #2

1571629034
Report to moderator
1571629034
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571629034

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571629034
Reply with quote  #2

1571629034
Report to moderator
1571629034
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571629034

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571629034
Reply with quote  #2

1571629034
Report to moderator
WEEKLY BONUS Unlimited Faucet&Fastest Dice PLINKO DICE CRASH ROULETTE PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571629034
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571629034

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571629034
Reply with quote  #2

1571629034
Report to moderator
1571629034
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571629034

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571629034
Reply with quote  #2

1571629034
Report to moderator
CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1032


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:07:06 PM
#2

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. So, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.
let me get this straight... you don't like what and/or how Mabsark says/communicates? and therefore he should be removed from defaulttrust?
do I have this right?
KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:11:29 PM
#3

I don't see him on Default Trust?

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:11:42 PM
#4

User in Question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=15707 (Mabsark)


Standing of the User :-

1. He is in DefaultTrust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. He is an ASICMiner shareholder in HaveLock.


It doesn't take a genius to understand that I'm an ASICMiner shareholder.


3. He has no trusted feedback so far.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15707


His action that is causing problem: He has left -ve feedback on all the cloud mining companies those are currently paying or have shown no sign of non-payment...

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

In his attempt to save HaveLock, where is investment is, he has also left -ve trust on the following profile...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927


My Point: Just like he has investment in ASICMiner through HaveLock, many of us have directly invested in these companies. I am not saying that all these companies will turn out to be successful, but the same is applicable for HaveLock too. There is more probability that this unregulated exchange will also go down like GLBSE. But, if a company does not want to reveal certain information, that does not allow him to leave -ve trust on that company. No one is forcing him to do business with this company and he is already blabbering in every thread for the same. If his whimsical attitude creates problem for these companies, then that would lead to financial loss for us. So, I would earnestly request to keep Mabsark out of DefaultTrust to make sure that these companies can do proper business on this forum.
let me get this straight... you don't like what and/or how Mabsark says/communicates? and therefore he should be removed from defaulttrust?
do I have this right?

Mabsark can say/communicate whatever he wants. He is already doing that for long. But if he gives trust for his financial benefit, he needs to be removed from DefaultTrust. Because when a new user joins, he automatically inherits DefaultTrust.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:16:03 PM
#5

I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:17:13 PM
#6

I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

I see many he has added negative to yet most are not red.
BTW, I added DefaultTrust and same thing. Is he on your Trust list?

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:20:11 PM
#7

I don't see him on Default Trust?

I can see him in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust. His trust is making profiles immediately red.

I see many he has added negative to yet most are not red.
BTW, I added DefaultTrust and same thing. Is he on your Trust list?

No, I dont trust whimsical people.

Do u see the following profiles in -ve ?

i. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397235

ii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933

iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594

iv. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902

v. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261927

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:21:35 PM
#8

Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:23:12 PM
#9

Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

What is your Trust depth ?

So far I dont trust anyone.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
#10

Not a one.
Maybe you trust someone who trusts him?

What is your Trust depth ?

So far I dont trust anyone.

1

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
#11

I think he should be as well, is abusing the trust system. He does not like the fact that I do not think havelock is serviceing the community "they allow shit IPO's". So he gave me negative trust cause he things that I am spreading fud... I only say things that I can prove and If I make a mistake I will appoligize.


I have asked him nicely to remove it as its just him honestly "griefing". But he seems to stand behind his stand on not having the right to voice a opinion.


Guys understand this persons first lang is spanish as well so he may not be able to communicate as well as need be to express himself.



Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:25:50 PM
#12

Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;

Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.

The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:27:51 PM
#13

It also makes it difficult for me to do background checks, people are like why should I trust you? You have a red mark next to your name... then I have to explain that someone does not agree with my view so they gave me negative trust. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH not being trustworthy.

KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:28:41 PM
#14

Changing the level, he is on CanaryInTheMine's list. He would be the one you'd have to contact.

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:31:15 PM
#15

The really screwed up part was he gave me negative trust when he had no depth level... then when he got depth level it popped up. I was like WTF never even noticed it before that.


Yea I am looking at all the feedback he has given none of it is for actual actions that call for it, its all cause he disagrees with the other person.

SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:36:29 PM
#16

Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;

Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.

The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.

Welcome back Smiley

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, Mabsark, Jimmothy, raskul and a few others have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

No problem. But, that does not allow u to make all your competing businesses red, whatever u think about them. None of them has held u at gun point to do business with them. I believe, they dint even sent a PM to u. U guys only jumping in every thread to disturb communication.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:39:24 PM
#17

Thats what he gave me negative trust for was talking negative about havelock. Trust should only be given for trades or attempted trades aka "Scams" Not for what someone is saying. If you do not like what someone is saying they got this feature on the board called "Ignore"

SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:41:50 PM
#18

Changing the level, he is on CanaryInTheMine's list. He would be the one you'd have to contact.

I used to know CanaryInTheMine is a well respected member of the community. How come this psycho got into his list ? As I can see, CanaryInTheMine is already informed and I replied to his Q. Now, it is up to him...

I checked https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=18614 and Mabsark is not there. Can u plz tell me how did u find his connection with CanaryInTheMine ?

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:42:37 PM
#19

Yea I can see him in level 2 trust but I do not see how he got there.

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:43:04 PM
#20

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:45:48 PM
#21

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?


But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:47:34 PM
#22

It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up.

Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment).
I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you?


Stop eye washing. The thread u hold in your signature clearly pushes HaveLock stocks that u own.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:49:23 PM
#23

Just Ignore each other lol thats what the button is for.

Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:49:30 PM
Last edit: December 11, 2014, 11:45:59 AM by Mabsark
#24

How is that an abuse of the trust system. For leaving negative feedback, it quite clearly states:

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I strongly believe that these services are ponzis (as do other users) and have left them negative feedback in accordance with the reasons outlined by this site.

With PB Mining just collapsing a lot of people have just lost a lot of money. The cloud mining companies that I've gave negative trust to have all refused to provide any evidence of their legitimacy, acting in the same way as PB did. People need to be warned of this before they get ripped off. It's pretty useless warning them afterwards.

If those companies are legitimate and provide evidence of that, then I'll remove those ratings like I said.

As for Riverboat, he was pretty much trying to extort Havelock into using his background checking service and lied about a conversation we had, as explained here.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:52:28 PM
#25

Stop eye washing. The thread u hold in your signature clearly pushes HaveLock stocks that u own.

You really havent bothered to just glance over my post history, have you? You really think I own, say, cryptx shares? Go over to the cryptx thread starting in June or July and find out what an utter fool you make of yourself with these accusations.
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:54:37 PM
#26

With PB Mining just collapsing a lot of people have just lost a lot of money. The cloud mining companies that I've gave negative trust to have all refused to provide any evidence of their legitimacy, acting in the same way as PB did. People need to be warned of this before they get ripped off. It's pretty useless warning them afterwards.

If those companies are legitimate and provide evidence of that, then I'll remove those ratings like I said.

As for Riverboat, he was pretty much trying to extort Havelock into using his background checking service and lied about a conversation we had, as explained [urlhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795360]here[/url].

All these companies are paying consistently so far. Why on earth they'll give u the exact evidence u r looking for ? BTC-e is also doing business without giving any evidence of who they are. Stunna & Dooglus both are doing business without giving any evidence of their identity. Companies are free to provide evidence as per their choice and customers are free to decide on their will. Who r u to play the judge ?

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:55:58 PM
#27

The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.

Secondly, he does not have proof that these users/companies are scamming (this is by his own admission in the trust that he left). He essentially says that the companies have not proven themselves to be legitimate and that he will remove negative trust once they have proven themselves to not be scamming. Negative trust should only be given when someone has actually scammed or there is strong evidence the person is trying to scam/is in the process of scamming. Additionally I would say that the majority of users here value the concept of innocent until proven guilty which means that evidence needs to be presented that the companies in question are scamming, not to say that the companies must prove they are not scamming.

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 10, 2014, 11:57:17 PM
#28

But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

I count 16 instances of negative trust  in your profile. Id say its pretty likely mabsark had valid concerns too.
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 10, 2014, 11:58:29 PM
Last edit: December 11, 2014, 12:12:39 AM by RiverBoatBTC
#29

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887871.msg9795972#msg9795972

Quote
I know what happend you got postive trust all a sudden so thats the day it showed up, I appoligize. You should not concern yourself with what I say, its other peoples choice to trust what I say or not. I hope someone give you negative trust Wink Pretty sure its coming actually lol

I do not think you understand what the trust system is for, its for when people trade not talk. As talking is a right I could tell everyone the moon is going to fall into the earth tomorrow its up to them to either read it or not.

You are just taking advantage of the broken trust system to PUSH YOUR views on others which is wrong, any real person would just put someone on ignore if they did not want to read what they had to say.


Did you miss the bold part there bud? If I am wrong I admit it, its called taking responsibility for your actions. I can admit when I am wrong can you?


Have you looked at VODS lol LOOK AT THE USERS Giving it you will get the picture lol

Killerloop X3 times left same crap he is mad cause I called Ardeva out for giving users a false sense of saftey "Pretty sure this is jayc89 or his but buddy see here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517340.msg5721016#msg5721016  Badbear calls him a liar."
sereno X2 calling out ponzis in the gambling section.
zoata87 Calling out bitbay and its shit show
1RuneKing shill of Flirtcoin creator who has negative trust of his own for runing a ponzi then started flirtcoin
evershawn need I say more?
120cycle ponzi operator
riverboatsink do I need to explain this?
ponjava Ponzi in gambling section
spixel - Ponzi supporter in gambling section


And if you look at my actual transactions with trusted members of the community the are all positive.

But I voice a valid concern, and have asked him to remove it but he refuses.

I count 16 instances of negative trust  in your profile. Id say its pretty likely mabsark had valid concerns too.

Now find one that is of actual value please. Here let me help you the ones for actual trades are positive.
TwinWinNerD 3: -0 / +4(4)   2014-12-02   0.00000000      He looked someone up for me
Wardrick 1: -0 / +3(3)   2014-06-05   0.00000000      Sold me a Walmart GC for BTC. Recommended trader. +1

raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:46:11 AM
#30

<snip>

raskul and a few others have HaveLock stocks



not fucking likely mate. i only mine with my own rigging.

1 x SP31
1 x SP20
3 x SP10
2 x S3+

why the fuck would I need to invest in a dodgy PO that guarantees no return whatsoever?

you are deluded.

My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is done to assist this community and BTC as a whole, due to the fact that there are far too many fraudsters who think they can get away with hiding a ponzi pyramid scheme under the guise of 'cloud mining'

9/10 of them are doing this and there are only a few who are genuine. none of which, I would invest in.
I give my vote of confidence to Mabsark.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
TeraBox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 142
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 10:58:42 AM
#31


Quote
My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is a lie right here, all customers who got any contracts by July 2014 got paid out their investment and got some small profit. You on the other hand are promoting your own rigs for mining and this is the main reason why you don't like competition.

raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 11:01:03 AM
#32


Quote
My only outside investment has been (quite a lot of BTC) in PBMining early in 2014 and because of my losses, i'm prepared to investigate anything which purports to be a 'cloud mining operation'

This is a lie right here, all customers who got any contracts by July 2014 got paid out their investment and got some small profit. You on the other hand are promoting your own rigs for mining and this is the main reason why you don't like competition.

not a lie, my customer number with pbmining is #51. I was promised a 5 year contract therefore i will have significant losses to the promises of pbmining.

my own rigs are here:
http://mmpool.org/user/rgs
as I already stated in your scam thread

occasionally i put them onto nicehash, which is a REAL cloud mining service (unlike your own fraudulent ponzi scheme).
please give evidence of your benign allegations.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
tmfp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1484


"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
#33

I have no horse in this race, but am actively looking for genuine opportunities to invest coin.
I have looked at many ventures asking for investment, from arbitrage to cloud mining and cannot believe how low the bar is set.
In the fiat world, these glossy, vague websites promising high ROI would be laughed at and discounted by anyone with a measure of good sense.
Some of these are on the level of Nigerian 419's and barely more sophisticated, but still seem to attract funds from similarly unsophisticated people.
Although 'innocent until proven guilty' is a valuable principle, this is not a court of law here. The trust system allows Mabsark and others to leave negative feedback based on their opinions and I don't agree that he and others are abusing it.
His critics say that he leaves negative feedback in order to make his own investments more attractive. Having read much of this, I personally think that is an excuse for people who play ponzis and see his actions as a threat to their 'game' to denigrate the value of his healthy skepticism.
Now it seems a trust war is beginning.
If that means confused newbies will research more before parting with coin, then that will be a positive side effect.


Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1090


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 03:53:00 PM
#34

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:03:52 PM
#35

To be honest, I'm considering leaving negative trust for you SS. It is pretty blatant that you are not just a victim of PBmining but are doing your damndest to keep all these ponzis going for as long as possible. I would consider you to be just as complicit as the operators of the ponzis, and don't trust a thing you say on that basis.
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:25:16 PM
#36

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:26:57 PM
#37

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

the trust system is borked?

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1090


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:33:46 PM
#38

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?
I'm thinking of giving a positive feedback to Mabsark to even out his trust. I've went through his feedbacks to various 'cloud miners', and to be honest I do find his opinion of them mostly substantiated.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

tmfp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1484


"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
#39

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 04:38:44 PM
#40

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

Because CanaryintheMine has der_troll in his trust list as well. Look at Hierarchical view at the bottom of the page to see who is on who's list.

Quote
        Luke-Jr
        Miner-TE
        Noitev
        eleuthria
        luv2drnkbr
        Digigami
        gmaxwell
        E
        zapeta
        bitpop
        Mabsark
        redcomet
        ipxtreme
        Philj
        os2sam
        yxt
        knybe
        Trance104
        sveetsnelda
        conv3rsion
        tlr
        bitcoin-rigs.com
        Vod
        dtmcnamara
        notme
        FCTaiChi
        Mushroomized
        mainichi
        greeners
        dribbits
        echris1
        SaltySpitoon
        bitcoiner49er
        BadBear
        freshzive
        arklan
        glendall
        Pistachio
        tarrant_01
        tbcoin
        ElideN
        friedcat
        Bees Brothers
        Christoban
        Stale
        af_newbie
        eroxors
        camolist
        MrTeal
        cncguru
        Mendacium
        PsychoticBoy
        Dabs
        mem
        Namworld
        lky_svn
        420
        mr2dave
        DobZombie
        gektek
        johnny5
        dyingdreams
        Zillions
        phrog
        Domrada
        Mapuo
        philipma1957
        jborkl
        RicRock
        jmutch
        MonocleMan
        b!z
        CoinHoarder
        absinth
        mitty
        (^_^)
        der_troll
        soy
        super3
        iluvpcs
        batt01
        xstr8guy
        MJGrae
        mobile
        nubbins
        ThickAsThieves
        hephaist0s
        BitcoinValet
        Timzim103
        Rounder
        Nemo1024
        TheXev
        ibminer
        Mooshire
        Benny1985
        mrbrt
        hanti
        ssinc
        Kaega
        finlof
        True___Blue
        elchorizo
        fewerlaws
        bitterdog
        Swimmer63
        locksmith9
        Krellan
        Spendulus
        MikeMike
        statdude
        bluespaceant
        Hiroaki
        keeron
        Bigdaddyaz
        Polyatomic
        palmface
        flowdab
        SpaceCadet
        photon
        dwdoc
        xzempt
        jdany
        mackstuart
        bmoconno
        jdot007
        mrtg
        maxpower
        xjack
        CommanderVenus
        daddyfatsax
        Plesk
        helipotte
        aurel57
        gambitv
        boyohi
        LaserHorse
        joeventura
        slashopt
        drofdelm
        canth
        zackclark70
        cdogster
        DBOD
        addzz
        DefaultTrust
        DustMite
        pixl8tr
        namoom
        blblr
        Taugeran
        arc45
        smscotten
        Cilantro
        chadtn
        kinger1331
        guytechie
        rumlazy
        fractalbc
        fforforest
        KyrosKrane
        ZBC3
        rj11248
        bitdigger2013
        Damnsammit
        jaslo
        BorisAlt
        ASICSAUCE
        sidehack
        steelcave
        Rotorgeek
        buyer99
        daddyhutch
        digeros
        west17m
        Trillium
        ziggysisland
        devthedev
        ryhan
        zac2013
        atomriot
        metal_jacke1
        Apheration
        spacebob
        2byZi
        terrapinflyer
        BenTheRighteous
        gsr18
        Paddy
        Jennifer Smith
        J_Dubbs
        00Smurf
        ldh37
        thomslik
        argakiig
        ManeBjorn
        Ski72
        suchmoon
        Thai

Beaten but I included a full list. Tongue

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 PM
#41

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.


People come into bitcointalk to learn about bitcoin and are like look at this childish ass shit.

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
#42

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so.
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1090


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:42:09 PM
#43

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1090


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
#44

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Canary added him in his trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) . Leaving trust does not add that person to your trust list I see.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
#45

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 04:47:29 PM
#46

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449
He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2?

If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default.
Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll.
If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list?

Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so.

You don't need to leave someone feedback to have them on your trust list.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
#47

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.


1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
BitCoinDream
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1014

The revolution will be digital


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:56:59 PM
#48

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 04:58:18 PM
#49

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:01:06 PM
#50

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.
BitCoinDream
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1014

The revolution will be digital


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:04:03 PM
#51

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.

Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:08:51 PM
#52

Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.

No, it would only work for people like that, who have no 'enemy'. No one has incentive to give that guy negative trust, he hurt no one and did an amazing job.
However, try exposing GAWminer, or BFL once upon a time, and see what happens to your trust rating when one of the Josh's begins paying for negative feedback for any critics.
John (John K.)
Global Troll-buster and
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1090


Will read PM's. Have more time lately


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:11:19 PM
#53

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.



Agreed here as someone who've did this last time too. Tongue
Without a form of crowdsourcing the reviews on individual users, the sole admins and moderators here would've collapsed under the multitudes of scammers jumping up every day.

My BTC Tip Jar: 1Pgvfy19uwtYe5o9dg3zZsAjgCPt3XZqz9 , GPG ID: B3AAEEB0 ,OTC ID: johnthedong
Escrow service is available on a case by case basis! (PM Me to verify I'm the escrow!)

BitCoinDream
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1014

The revolution will be digital


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:11:55 PM
#54

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311527.0

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.

If someone is an idiot, he'll be scammed. On or off the internet. If u want to police that, then this is your only option...

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

On the other hand, when someone gets the power to decide what is a scam and what is not, that is inadvertently gonna be abused.

If you keep trust, but not DefaultTrust, then u r only trusting people by your choice. Forum is not spoon feeding you, which is far far better.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
#55

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 05:37:39 PM
#56

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.
businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.
those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.

with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 06:01:23 PM
#57

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
From his left feedback
Quote
...refused to provide any evidence of legitmacy...
I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.
I agree.
businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.
I disagree. There is no reason a business cannot operate anon. If a business is not anon then they would be subject to potential attacks from people trying to steal from their business. How many people know BadBear's real identity or his address? How many people know the same about Stunna, or Tomatocage, or Dobs, or Danny? With the exception of Danny, I don't think more then a handful of people (if any) know their real name, and probably no one knows their true address. Yet the community still trusts all of them tremendously.
those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.
Who gets to set these "regulations"? I have not seen any democratic process to set any kind of regulations required to adhere to to conduct business.
with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.
What are you talking about? This is not an example of the community "coming together" this is an example of one person leaving trust to other people

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
#58

The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 06:09:25 PM
#59

The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.
BadBear does business on here. Doing business as a "person" is essentially the same as doing business as a company as far as the experience and risk to the customer is concerned

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:10:32 PM
#60

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
#61

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented. You instead steer the conversation away from my actual arguement because you cannot refrute it.

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams. It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming. A person's rank is essentially "proof of time spent on the forum" and there is no reason to trust someone solely on the fact they have spent a lot of time on the forum (or essentially paid for someone else's time on the forum). Signature campaigns are what allow Bitcoin related businesses to grow and advertise as other firms of advertisement are prohibitively expensive. Not allowing signature campaigns would further centralize Bitcoin related businesses into few large early entrants.

Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
#62

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 11, 2014, 07:47:50 PM
#63

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.
you are ignoring the facts that I presented.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.
For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

I refuted your claim that badbear is not a business by the fact that he has done business on here and that the risk and experience to the person doing business with him is the same. My other examples all very much run businesses but you ignored those.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:49:52 PM
#64

...and retorts with personal abuse...
For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

you are someone who makes money from people who wish to defraud people by buying trusted forum accounts.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1989


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:55:20 PM
Merited by Foxpup (3)
#65

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 07:57:38 PM
#66

I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded.

couldn't agree more. What he is doing is not abuse, it is actually good use. whats wrong with informing the community of a possible ponzi scheme, if its not it should not effect their business and in light of the ponzi backed mining collapse most of these services should be providing proof of hashing, we wouldn't want more people getting goxed would we?
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
#67

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.

Quote
It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming.

Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.

Quote
Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:31:28 PM
#68

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.


  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
#69

The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:32:57 PM
#70

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.

Quote
It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming.

Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.

Quote
Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.

3620 post shows that you are quite committed to this community and all that it stands for.
respect.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:43:18 PM
#71


1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.
leaving negative feedback against a possible ponzi to warn others is a good thing.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.
He owns shares in Asicminer, not havelock so has no stake in havelock success. Asicminer has been traded off exchange in the past with great success.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.
Many Asicminer shareholders are voicing their concerns regarding the recent relation with hashie, Mabsark  i believe is one of them. My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
#72

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:

Code:
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 08:52:39 PM
#73

My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
#74

My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

I always enjoy your input bt really hope you are wrong on this one. I sadly don't like the hashie relation very much, i still trust FC though,but that doe snot mean i trust hashie.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
#75

really hope you are wrong on this one.

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet Smiley.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 09:08:24 PM
#76

My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

i have previously raised concerns about publicly floated companies who are not part of, or regulated by the normal process of public liability.
I know a lot about public liability, having worked 17 years as a news photographer and the reason I, myself have never committed to investing in anything on havelock is because it is simply a rogue website (however you want to look at it) where public liability is of no concern to those who list stocks, nor to the entity which is havelock. I'll elaborate on what i mean by public liability (specifically, in stocks)...

Granted, havelock purport to have a selection process which seems in the onset, quite rigorous but it does not detract from the facts that if a company like AMHash wish to feed next generation after next generation after next generation with these publicly floated stocks, they can - and, they have been doing this. in the real world, this wouldn't have gotten past AM2 for the simple fact that investments were made into next GEN (and a new PO launched) prior to divs being paid.

I feel that there is a bigger debate to be had on this and I don't want to go too far off-topic in this thread, from my own vote of confidence in Mabsark and his entitlement to leave the trust that he has left for a scheme which, of course, looks in the entirety to be fraudulent.
again, Mabsark has my vote of confidence RE: the OP.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 09:17:26 PM
#77

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:

Code:
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

- Same logic applies to HaveLock. Just like PB mining has fallen, BTCT & GLBSE has fallen too. So why did not you leave -ve feedback on HaveLock and on the companies trying to rip off people through HaveLock ? Just because U *think* they are good boy ?

2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

- When I say someone is a shareholder of NYSE, it means he owns a stock that is traded on NYSE.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.

- U r dodging my Q. I asked u about a specific company which has already scammed people by deleting the referral table from database.


The motto of the whole group that is doing hulla-hoop over here is simple. This group can mostly be identified by their sig containing different companies traded on HaveLock. A few are also pushing through various threads they create. The motto is to push stock values up by applying Goebbels theory. You guys have bought them low and wanna sell them high.

By the way, why dont u ask for a pic of your God, err FriedCat ? Is it crime to ask for the pic of a person who returned 200 BTC in one day and raised 800 BTC in one week ? That would help u to worship him when HaveLock crashes !!!

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 11, 2014, 09:22:17 PM
#78

picking and choosing whom to debate with

<!!!>

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 10:13:23 PM
#79

really hope you are wrong on this one.

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet Smiley.

I know, I almost took the bet as i knew it would go down, but instead made a stupid comment about a  gentlemen's club.
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1989


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 10:24:52 PM
#80

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.



I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

KWH
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 10:56:21 PM
#81

Quote
I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

How about changing the negative to neutral?

When the subject of buying BTC with Paypal comes up, I often remember this: 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 11, 2014, 11:37:30 PM
#82

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 12:13:07 AM
#83

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?
CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1032


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 12:16:07 AM
#84

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?
Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!
scarsbergholden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 12:32:37 AM
#85

picking and choosing whom to debate with

<!!!>

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,

Huh

How or why is he considered a trusted member of the community in your eyes? As far as I can tell from his trust feedback he has done very few deals over a short period of time. I am not really sure why he was ever put on default trust in the first place.

der_troll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 251



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 01:34:37 AM
#86

Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though.

THought Id post this here:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835239.msg9605837#msg9605837l

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.
That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?
Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

deluxeCITY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 02:33:40 AM
#87

-snip-

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

-snip-
I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127  additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him.

One very good example of this is the user suchmoon. I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine

I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust.

If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy. Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.


The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock.

There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked.

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text.

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:10:22 AM
#88

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.
deluxeCITY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:23:00 AM
#89

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.
15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

and 15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:45:07 AM
#90

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating?

Thanks much.
15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.

and 15 U.S. Code 78i (a)(5)
Quote
(5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security.
These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i
Not sure how any of those apply, as I don't have any stake in AMHASH, an account on Havelock or any shares of any cloud mining operation. Moreover, I haven't made any false statements.

Besides all that,
Quote from: TheSEC
Swaps are financial contracts in which two counterparties agree to exchange or "swap" payments with each other as a result of such things as changes in a stock price, interest rate or commodity price.
Even if I did have AMHASH shares (which I don't) on Havelock (where I'm not) and I was slandering PBmining not because it was a ponzi but because it was a legitimate threat the AMHASH (which it's not, as it's now an imploded ponzi), that still wouldn't be a swap as there is no agreement to swap payments based on a change in price.
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1040


#Free market


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 06:10:40 AM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 08:15:22 AM by redsn0w
#91

This forum is amazing every day  new story , I think we need a new trust system (or better a *check_up* to the actual defaultTrust list ).
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 08:12:05 AM
#92

With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.

I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.

Thats a bit rich really. Aside from the actual security regulation violations that are almost certainly being committed by havelock & co, most if not all the issuers on such sites, and every other issuer that creates a secondary market; how  could I possibly 'pump and dump' when first of all, I have never recommended buying any bitcoin security ever, and secondly, I dont have a thing to 'dump'.

Quote

@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. 

Yeah because we all know scambusting is an official and heavily regulated profession  Roll Eyes

I will say I fully agree with you on canary's trust issue.
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 10:05:02 AM
#93

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 10:43:28 AM
#94

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

Everyone serves their own interests. That doesn't mean they can't serve the interests of others as well though. Stopping scams before they can rip people off is in the best interests of the whole community I'd say. Wouldn't you? Those companies I left negative feedback on are not rivals. They're scams. If they're not scams, then they'd be able to provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. They've been asked many times by many people and simply refuse to do so. If they do so, I will remove the feedback like I said. AMHashs's rivals are CEX.io, Hashnest, KNC Cloud and PetaMine. Do you see me leaving any negative feedback for those services?
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 10:46:38 AM
#95

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

Everyone serves their own interests. That doesn't mean they can't serve the interests of others as well though. Stopping scams before they can rip people off is in the best interests of the whole community I'd say. Wouldn't you? Those companies I left negative feedback on are not rivals. They're scams. If they're not scams, then they'd be able to provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. They've been asked many times by many people and simply refuse to do so. If they do so, I will remove the feedback like I said. AMHashs's rivals are CEX.io, Hashnest, KNC Cloud and PetaMine. Do you see me leaving any negative feedback for those services?

You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

My comment was more on the trust system. I am not aware of the details of cloud mining to reliable judge your actions. CanaryInTheMine has taken his stance so now its his responsibility.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3024
Merit: 1497


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2014, 10:47:03 AM
#96

hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...

Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.

Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? Wink

It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.


Yet you still find yourself in the middle of these disputes some how...

Involving disinterested 3rd parties in trust moderation is a failed policy.
Centralized policing of the trust system is a failed policy.

Until Theymos wises up an realizes this he is going to personally participate in shredding this community from the inside out with his own hands. Threads like this will come up more and more until they are just like the good old "centralized communist system" days, only with a nice pretend veneer of a distributed system to make it look like legitimate community consensus. People are free to point out trust abuse, and in many cases extreme abusers are themselves tagged with negatives from other respected community members. You guys CLAIM you don't want to have to deal with disputes, but you are CONSTANTLY INJECTING YOURSELVES INTO THEM.

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
#97

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

As a member that was on default trust, comment of selling your account should be taken seriously and with consequences, i doubt many would trust you after writing something so stupid.
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 10:54:32 AM
#98

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

As a member that was on default trust, comment of selling your account should be taken seriously and with consequences, i doubt many would trust you after writing something so stupid.

It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:04:48 AM
#99

It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.

You have public evidence to support this, apart from their word?

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley


regardless of it being in offtopic, it reads like he was willing to sell his account for the right price, being a couple of bitcoins.
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:08:26 AM

It was a throwaway comment. He shouldn't be judged on the basis of that.

More importantly, his password hasn't changed after he made that comment so he hasn't sold it yet even if his intending to do so.

You have public evidence to support this, apart from their word?

https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php

regardless of it being in offtopic, it reads like he was willing to sell his account for the right price, being a couple of bitcoins.

Accounts in default trust get sold all the time. For instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890434.0
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:11:00 AM

You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

I didn't want to leave neutral feedback. Like I said earlier, when leaving negative feedback it states.

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I'm using the system as intended.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:11:36 AM

Accounts in default trust get sold all the time. For instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890434.0

smart enough to use a throw away to sell the account worth more though.

Anybody willing to buy a legendary, default trusted account will be doing so to scam.

To any potential buyers, there is a good chance that you will be easily caught so be careful.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:13:58 AM

The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
November 20, 2014, 06:04:19 AM - malaimult - password changed

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:16:40 AM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 11:53:07 AM by SpanishSoldier

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.



I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

Mabsark negative trusting exclusively rivals does look as serving his own interest.

CanaryInTheMine is active and have taken action by removing der_troll and putting a new trust on Mabsark. Now the responsibility lies with him. If it feels to the other trusted members or Theymos that Mabsark is abusing his privilege then CanaryInTheMine will be held responsible and would likely lose his status.

I think the trust system works fine, would like to monitor this and see how it ends.

OP updated. Awaiting to hear from theymos.

  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:16:44 AM

The trust should be removed in my opinion for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, his trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
der_troll -6: -1 / +0(0)   2014-12-11   0.00000000   Reference
Abuses Trust system by giving negative trust to all cloud mining services while promoting AMHash.

His trust is a conflict of interest. If he owns shares of a competing cloud mining service then his trust will result in potential customers to not want to invest in the competition which will result in them buying the shares of the service he owns. This will result in his shares becoming more valuable. If he has a valid reason these users/companies should have negative trust then he should present evidence to someone else without this conflict.


Quote
November 20, 2014, 06:04:19 AM - malaimult - password changed

I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley


I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:19:07 AM

I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:19:33 AM

You can give neutral feedback instead. Thats why its there.

I didn't want to leave neutral feedback. Like I said earlier, when leaving negative feedback it states.

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I'm using the system as intended.

I am not defending you or der_troll. Personally, I feel you've a vested interest, but I don't have conviction or the power to influence anything.

It would be an interesting case to see how the trust system works.
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:21:05 AM

I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

That does make it suspicious. Still, its a big accusation and I would urge you to show restraint. One of them may not be a good writer or lazy and copied it.

Once an accusation is made publicly it sticks even if it is later found out to be incorrect.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:21:42 AM

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.


peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:25:36 AM

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:38:22 AM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 01:25:24 PM by elasticband

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

I am not judging or accusing, i am merely speculating on small pieces of information gathered. There is no conclusive evidence but there are some dots linking the two if you like to speculate.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:42:12 AM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 01:13:16 PM by Mabsark

I am not defending you or der_troll. Personally, I feel you've a vested interest, but I don't have conviction or the power to influence anything.

Oh, I got that. I was just pointing out that I was using the trust system as intended. I've also just removed negative feedback from one service like I said I would if they could just provide a shred of evidence.

I do have a vested interest, as does der_troll. My interest lies with customers choosing an unquestionably legitimate service. Der_troll's interest lies with customers choosing an almost certain cloud mining ponzi. Also, given that I used the Trust system how it's meant to be used based on the descriptions of the options, his negative feedback complaining about me abusing the trust system is hypocritical. That would be the actual abuse of the system given that I'm not a scammer and he has no reason to suspect me of being a scammer.
der_troll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 251



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 01:12:04 PM

I would urge you to use the seclog tool with caution. Its extremely useful as a warning, but you shouldn't use it to try and connect anybody who has some opinion.

The feedback left by der_troll is word for word what malaimult wrote in this thread one day prior to the feedback being left.
My guess is Der_troll and Malaimult are one int he same.

Copy/paste, why? Because it was all well put by malaimult. What's the point of rewriting it?

raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 01:14:38 PM

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1040


#Free market


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 01:16:07 PM

this thread is becoming ridiculous.


This thread is ... awesome ! It is not ridiculous, it will be helpful for theymos  because I think we will need a new trust system in the *new* forum software.
der_troll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604
Merit: 251



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 01:24:23 PM

Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...but I'm a bad guy who needs to be removed from Canary default trust because of that comment. And as pointed by member here my password did not change and my account is still mine....

This is just ridiculous where this forum is heading.
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 504


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2014, 01:36:54 PM

Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...but I'm a bad guy who needs to be removed from Canary default trust because of that comment. And as pointed by member here my password did not change and my account is still mine....

This is just ridiculous where this forum is heading.

A global mode was offered much higher (>=5x) but he declined. 95% isn't right, you may want to lower it. According to your post, you may sell it if you are offered a good price. So, Canary removed you from DT. Roll Eyes

   ~~MZ~~

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 12, 2014, 01:49:21 PM

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.




Nah, I don't think so.


1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:30:10 PM

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

it's fun though..... Amazed at the title change, remove CITM from deault trust..... madness.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:33:25 PM

Quote
I would sell it for the right price, couple of bitcoins would do I guess Smiley

My comment in off topic. Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list. That post of mine was more a joke then anything serious, if serious then you would be able to find same kind of post in buying/selling accounts threads. As for the "right price", how many users here wouldn't sell it for the right price if they were offered 10-20BTC for their account? Yes there are ones that wouldn't but 95% members would accept this offer...

No way would i sell my account or 50btc+, i value my reputation and honor more than that, the fact that again you have openly said you would sell your account is valid reason enough for CITM not to trust you. he does not want to trust someone willing to sell their account then that is his prerogative.
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1040


#Free market


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 03:34:30 PM

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1667


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2014, 03:48:26 PM

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1759



View Profile WWW
December 12, 2014, 04:08:44 PM

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 05:43:28 PM

Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 05:46:04 PM
Last edit: December 12, 2014, 06:00:56 PM by SpanishSoldier

Because of this Canary removed me from his trusted list.

Im more curious how you ended up on canary's list in the first place.
A quick glance over your post history doesnt exactly answer that question.

The same way Mabsark & MrTeal ended up in his trust list. Canary has lost his credibility to be in DefaultTrust.

Canary leads Group buys from FriedCat led AsicMiner and whoever joins there gets into his trust list. Now, if anyone goes against FriedCat will be thrown out of his trust list, because that is a conflict of interest for Canary. This is utter nonsense.

BadBear clearly stated that der_troll is not an alt and from the password change history, it is also clear that his password was not changed. So, that is the original owner, but Canary threw him out of his trust list for conflict of interest.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.




Nah, I don't think so.



  ▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃                                      ▃▃▃▂▂▂▃▃▃                         
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
   ██████████████████                                        █████████████     ████                 
          ████                                               ████                                   
          ████   █████ █████ ████   █████    █████████       ████       ████   ████  ███████████   
          ████   ▀█████████▀ ████   ████    ████   ████      █████████  ████   ████   ████  █████   
          ████    ████▀ ▀▀▀  ████   ████   ████     ████     █████████  ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ████   ████   █████████████     ████       ████   ████   ████    ████ 
          ████    ████       ███████████▄   ████             ████       ████   ████   ████   █████ 
          ████    ████       █████  ███████  ████  ████      █████      ████   ████   ███████████   
         ▄████▄   ████        ███     ███      ██████        █████      ████   ████   █████████     
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                                      ████         
                                                                             █▀▀   
Blockchain Fair Games
|
Truly one of a kind games:
MAGIC DICE   CHAIN'S CODE   PIRATE BAY
MINING FACTORY      RAPID TO THE MOON
|

400 BTC
★ PRIZE FUND ★
|

WEEKLY GIWEAWAYS
Join our community!
150% BONUS
First-time deposit
VISA  🔴🌕  50+coins

CERTIFIED RNG
100% TRANSPARENT
PROVABLY FAIR
Chris_Sabian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 12, 2014, 09:24:37 PM

this thread is becoming ridiculous.

Well, this thread has just added a bunch of people to my ignore list and my personal distrust list.
Stargazer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575
Merit: 252


CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:11:45 PM

<snip>

Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.

This!

People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
CryptoTalk.org| 
MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!
🏆
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1989


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:36:15 PM


People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Stargazer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575
Merit: 252


CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
December 12, 2014, 11:58:28 PM


People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
CryptoTalk.org| 
MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!
🏆
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1989


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 12:13:33 AM


People who are "accepted" by the owner of the forum should not be in any way promoted and be able to tag other people's profiles.
What matters now is not how many transactions the account is involved in or how many people left a trust rating but if these people are among the privileged.

If you have a better solution please speak up. As it is the current system is the most stable that we have had. Find a plan for forum trust that can't be exploited, or has a lower risk of being exploited, and I'm sure it will be adopted.

Every system can be exploited, just like the current one is. What I'd propose is:
Remove the default trust and make all comments equal. Rate the profile by the number of positive/negative votes.
Allow only 1 vote per account and don't allow newbies and jr. members to leave comments to prevent spam.

What I find strange at the moment are people leaving multiple trust ratings with the same purpose. Why doesn't the staff ban trust spammers or allow only 1 rating per person?

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 13, 2014, 02:15:50 AM

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.
This is ridiculous. You conclude that just because two people have the same opinion that you do not agree with that they must be a puppet of eachother. This just shows how open you are when discussing this.

I also question you regarding your (un)paid signature. Anyone who sees a paid signature advertisement can reasonably conclude the reason someone is wearing a signature of one of the companies that you claim to be a scam - they are being paid to do so. With your signature on the other hand there is no such clear incentive. Both yourself and others who appear to be trustworthy because of a small circle of people giving each-other trust are in the same situation, along with others who appear to be random are wearing the signature of a thread that is one sided (and self moderated to prevent an opposing side to voice their counter points) that claims the competition of the site you are promoting is a scam.

To put it another way:
  • You are wearing a signature promoting a specific company
  • The company is not your own
  • There is no clear evidence you are getting paid to promote such company
  • There is no affiliate/referral link to track how much traffic/business you bring to the site discrediting any potential claim you receive any kind of referral income for wearing your signature. 
  • From what I can tell these signature went up at all the approximate same time
  • From what I can tell these signatures are exactly the same with somewhat complex formatting features

The above would make me conclude that you are either all puppets of ASICminer in order to get more people to buy shares so the operator can run away with investor money (just because mining power is "real" does not mean the operator is forced to deliver mining revenue to shareholders), or are all colluding to pump the price of AM1 that you all own.

xuan87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 13, 2014, 02:49:07 AM



People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust.

-SNIP-

This part is crucial for me.
What if the trusted member make a new account and make it trustable ?


░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███████████████░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░██████████████████████░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█████████████████████████░░░░
░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░░
░░░░░░░░███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███████░░
░░░░░░░███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████░░
░░░░░░░███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████░██████░
░░░░░░░██████░░░░░█░░░░░████████░██████░
░░░░░░░███████░░░███░░░████░░███░██████░
░░░░░░░███████░░██░██░████░░███░░█████░░
░░░░░░░░██████░░██░░█░███░░███░░██████░░
░░░░░░░░░███████░██░█░█░░░███░░██████░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░██████░███░░░███░░░█████░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░██░░████░░░░░░██░░░██████░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░████░░░░░██████░░░█████░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░███████░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░███░░░█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░██████░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
▂▂ ▃▃ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ TeraWATT █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▃▃ ▂▂
Global LED Adoption Through Blockchain Technology
≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒『ICO IS LIVE』≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒
WEBSITE』『WHITEPAPER
≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒≒
TWITTER』『TELEGRAM
Stargazer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 575
Merit: 252


CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 02:50:56 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days Wink

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
CryptoTalk.org| 
MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!
🏆
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 03:00:33 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 13, 2014, 03:10:56 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)

SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1989


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 03:14:04 AM

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days Wink

Having multiple accounts is something we can't enforce, so it would be irresponsible to say that its disallowed. The number next to someone's name is pretty irrelevant, if anyone is using the trust system solely by the green or red number, thats their fault. Its like Ebay feedback, before you buy a yacht from someone with 100 positive feedback for purchases, you should probably check and see what that feedback is for. Allowing people to leave more than one rating really isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any issue with people spamming feedback. Giving someone positive feedback does not mean that they are on the default trust list, I have done many deals with people, but if you check my sent feedback it accurately describes the transaction so that people can gauge what my feedback means for themselves. I have added four people to the default trustlist and left probably 50 different positive feedbacks. Mr. CanaryInTheMine gave positive feedback to people he had a positive transaction with, not a problem. That goes back to the point of reading what someone has gained feedback for and the Ebay example. If someone has 50 positive trust for buying things from group buys, that doesnt mean they are trustworthy to sell you something. The feedback system is a tool, there is no preventing it from people that use it wrong. The default trust system just means that someone in the line trusts that they will give others accurate feedback. If not, changes are made.

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 03:16:40 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.
I can't speak for others, but Canary added me to his trust list and I've never participated in one of his group buys. I'd suspect the majority of the people there are in a similar situation. There's no reason for Canary to add random group buy participants, as he doesn't have to trust them at all to take their money and send it to Fried cat.  They need to trust him.
If you look at his trusted trust you will see that he has many people that have left him positive feedback that have not themselves received any feedback from anyone. These people are on his trust list (meaning they are on default trust because of him). You should be able to reasonably conclude that he has put many people on his trust list because he has done business with him (and he unlikely risked anything because he has his customers send funds to him prior to him sending his product)
I don't claim he hasn't done business with them. I'm merely saying I wasn't part of his group buy and don't imagine all the others are either. He obviously didn't put everyone on his trust list from the group buys, he'd have hundreds if that was the case.
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 13, 2014, 04:19:47 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way.

As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded.


@malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days Wink

It's naive to think you can stop multiple accounts, you can't. I'm not going to sit here and list all the ways to do it, but suffice it to say the scammers know all of them, and it isn't very hard. It's their livelihood, it's what they do, and most of them are good at what they do. Multiple negative ratings by the same user already do not increase one's negative rating, but they shouldn't be stopped from giving more than one because there may be more than one issue at stake (there are good reasons to leave more than one negative feedback, and there are bad). Trust spam does get removed.

Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible.

If the trust list itself didn't exist and all comments were given equal weight, it would just turn into a numbers game, and scammers/spammers would win that game by a large margin. I found a spammer/account farmer in the local boards with over 130 accounts, and they weren't newbie accounts either. Under your system, that guy, if he wanted, would probably be the highest trusted member on the forums, lol. I've found other spammers with similar numbers, or even more.

Also newbies wouldn't know who to trust, and just throwing newbies in the water with the sharks when they don't know sharks exist (most forums ban anyone who's even suspected of scamming) isn't right. And if you're going to say ban scammers, we have no interest in banning people from participating in the forum just because they are breaking a law. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Guy Fawkes, fuck it even Robin Hood just to make the point, all "criminals" who break laws. (Alleged) rapist, (alleged) treasonist, (attempted) mass murder, and theft. All Criminals who should be banned if they posted here?


1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 13, 2014, 04:39:26 AM

People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.

As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.

I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts.

You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user.