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=trust2. 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=15707His 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=397235ii.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=390933iii.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379594iv.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366902In 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=261927My 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.
