Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust

[RiverBoatBTC]

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.

[1713255172]

1713255172

[1713255172]

1713255172

[1713255172]

1713255172

[1713255172]

1713255172

[MrTeal]

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.)]

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?

[John (John K.)]

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.

[RiverBoatBTC]

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?

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]

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.

[BadBear]

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?

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.

[BitCoinDream]

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?

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]

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?

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.

[Puppet]

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]

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?

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]

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.)]

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?

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.
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.

[BitCoinDream]

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?

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]

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

...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.

[raskul]

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

...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.

[Quickseller]

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

...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

[raskul]

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

[Quickseller]

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

[Puppet]

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.