Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust

[KWH]

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?

[1715195506]

1715195506

[Puppet]

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]

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]

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]

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,

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]

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]

-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]

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]

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)

(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)

(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]

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)

(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)

(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,

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]

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]

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'.

@ 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 

I will say I fully agree with you on canary's trust issue.

[peligro]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[elasticband]

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]

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]

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

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]

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