Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust

[Quickseller]

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.

[1713511160]

1713511160

[1713511160]

1713511160

[raskul]

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

[raskul]

...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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

[elasticband]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[elasticband]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

[raskul]

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.

[SpanishSoldier]

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 !!!

[raskul]

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,

[elasticband]

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 .

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]

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.