Questions for CanaryInTheMine

[KWH]

In reference to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.20

After looking over and looking closely at the Trust details of less than half of your Trust, I found several interesting things. Now, I am not accusing you of anything but needing to prune your list. I find you business savvy and would trade with you.
1. You have quite a few Newbies and users with low post counts or time on the forum.
2. It looks like you have padded your Risked BTC amount. Both seller and buyer seem to share the same Risked amounts. May be the case,  may not but it does look funny.
3. Several of those on your Trust list have less than 1-3 trades and I fail to see how this is just cause to be added to the Trust list.
4. Please prune your enormous list, it is only adding problems to the already flawed system, now and later. Doing business with a user should amass Positive, Neutral or Negative Trust but in any case a few successful trades is not cause to be added to the Trust list.
Only going through less than half, I posted some below. I am not accusing these people of any wrong doing. I do believe most should not be on the Trust list.


Edit:
I have finished browsing through this lengthy list. All I can add is most of it needs to be truncated. So many Newbies, Jr. Members and Member accounts with one common denominator: They bought from CanaryInTheMine.
Everyone, please look through the list for yourself and then decide.
Also to add, If had an agenda, what is it? I don't endorse anyone in particular, I have no sig. campaigns and I used my real account.

Name:    (^_^)
Posts:    21
Activity:    21
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    November 17, 2012, 06:01:23 PM
Last Active:    April 03, 2014, 10:05:21 PM

Name:    redcomet
Posts:    52
Activity:    52
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 31, 2011, 03:54:21 PM
Last Active:    November 03, 2014, 11:57:02 PM

Trust summary for Philj

This user's password was reset recently.

Name:    tlr
Posts:    86
Activity:    86
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    June 20, 2011, 04:24:52 AM
Last Active:    April 24, 2014, 07:21:54 PM

Name:    bitcoin-rigs.com
Posts:    74
Activity:    74
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    June 22, 2011, 01:07:28 PM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 03:44:14 PM

Name:    dtmcnamara
Posts:    131
Activity:    131
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    June 30, 2011, 01:39:06 AM
Last Active:    August 01, 2014, 12:42:19 PM

(1 buy, 1 feedback)
Name:    notme
Posts:    7502
Activity:    1134
Position:    Legendary
Date Registered:    July 17, 2011, 12:51:23 PM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 11:22:32 PM

(No idea why he is on Trust)
Name:    FCTaiChi
Posts:    731
Activity:    308
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    July 18, 2011, 01:11:56 AM
Last Active:    May 09, 2014, 11:49:33 AM

Name:    mainichi
Posts:    15
Activity:    15
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    July 26, 2011, 03:38:37 PM
Last Active:    September 25, 2014, 05:54:10 AM

Trust summary for Mushroomized

This user's password was reset recently.

Name:    greeners
Posts:    51
Activity:    51
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    July 26, 2011, 05:52:48 PM
Last Active:    December 06, 2014, 07:55:19 PM

Name:    dribbits
Posts:    20
Activity:    20
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    July 28, 2011, 01:00:11 PM
Last Active:    November 30, 2013, 01:38:27 PM

(1 buy)
Name:    echris1
Posts:    124
Activity:    124
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    July 30, 2011, 05:38:58 AM
Last Active:    February 03, 2014, 05:57:33 AM

( Have no clue why he's on the Trust list)
Name:    freshzive
Posts:    447
Activity:    447
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    October 18, 2011, 01:29:52 AM
Last Active:    May 11, 2014, 02:09:14 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    tbcoin
Posts:    1126
Activity:    770
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    December 31, 2011, 08:37:58 AM
Last Active:    Today at 08:42:28 PM

Name:    ElideN
Posts:    63
Activity:    63
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    January 09, 2012, 07:02:53 PM
Last Active:    August 23, 2014, 01:14:51 PM

Name:    Christoban
Posts:    9
Activity:    9
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    January 24, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
Last Active:    September 01, 2014, 01:49:23 PM

Name:    Stale
Posts:    46
Activity:    46
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    February 03, 2012, 11:32:43 AM
Last Active:    Today at 12:25:43 AM

Name:    cncguru
Posts:    102
Activity:    102
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    February 28, 2012, 10:13:00 PM
Last Active:    Today at 11:33:42 PM

(No idea why)
Name:    Mendacium
Posts:    172
Activity:    172
Position:    Donator
Date Registered:    March 16, 2012, 09:22:09 PM
Last Active:    December 10, 2014, 12:31:18 PM

(Look at the feedback he left, unbelievable he is on the Trust list)
Name:    mem
Posts:    1461
Activity:    644
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    April 04, 2012, 03:34:20 AM
Last Active:    September 16, 2014, 07:05:38 AM

(1 deal)
Name:    Namworld
Posts:    681
Activity:    681
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    April 16, 2012, 09:29:50 PM
Last Active:    Today at 11:42:08 PM

Name:    lky_svn
Posts:    45
Activity:    45
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 13, 2012, 08:00:33 AM
Last Active:    November 08, 2014, 09:37:56 AM

Name:    mr2dave
Posts:    26
Activity:    26
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    July 02, 2012, 05:57:11 AM
Last Active:    November 04, 2014, 03:31:10 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    gektek
Posts:    237
Activity:    237
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    July 16, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
Last Active:    September 23, 2014, 01:57:08 AM

Name:    johnny5
Posts:    73
Activity:    73
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    July 30, 2012, 01:05:53 AM
Last Active:    Today at 10:55:32 PM

Name:    dyingdreams
Posts:    175
Activity:    175
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    July 30, 2012, 02:33:43 AM
Last Active:    October 12, 2014, 11:37:10 AM

(No idea)
Name:    Zillions
Posts:    155
Activity:    155
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    July 30, 2012, 07:27:10 AM
Last Active:    October 14, 2014, 03:26:22 AM

Name:    phrog
Posts:    33
Activity:    33
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    August 06, 2012, 08:50:32 PM
Last Active:    December 06, 2014, 09:38:18 PM

(2 deals)
Name:    Domrada
Posts:    186
Activity:    186
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    August 15, 2012, 11:22:52 AM
Last Active:    September 19, 2014, 05:43:49 PM

(No idea)
Name:    Mapuo
Posts:    630
Activity:    616
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    August 16, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
Last Active:    December 06, 2014, 07:27:39 AM

(No idea)
Name:    jborkl
Posts:    232
Activity:    232
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    August 23, 2012, 09:22:34 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 05:31:52 PM

(No idea how he is on the Trust list)
Name:    jmutch
Posts:    226
Activity:    196
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    August 30, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Last Active:    April 13, 2014, 09:08:13 PM

Name:    MonocleMan
Posts:    98
Activity:    98
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    September 08, 2012, 09:14:44 AM
Last Active:    February 26, 2014, 12:22:16 PM

Name:    absinth
Posts:    8
Activity:    8
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    October 01, 2012, 10:45:23 PM
Last Active:    April 12, 2014, 08:33:21 PM

Name:    mitty
Posts:    363
Activity:    363
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    November 10, 2012, 08:54:59 PM
Last Active:    September 10, 2014, 10:59:05 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    soy
Posts:    1176
Activity:    462
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    November 27, 2012, 10:29:47 AM
Last Active:    December 09, 2014, 11:56:30 AM

(Rewarded for gifting a domain?)
Name:    super3
Posts:    986
Activity:    602
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    November 29, 2012, 11:45:21 PM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 09:30:21 PM

(3 deals)
Name:    batt01
Posts:    255
Activity:    255
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    December 09, 2012, 03:48:45 PM
Last Active:    October 04, 2014, 04:26:57 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    MJGrae
Posts:    134
Activity:    134
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    January 13, 2013, 08:28:49 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 05:53:21 PM

Name:    Timzim103
Posts:    67
Activity:    67
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    February 07, 2013, 09:08:27 AM
Last Active:    August 25, 2014, 11:52:41 AM

More suspects:

Name:    Rounder
Posts:    24
Activity:    24
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    February 16, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
Last Active:    September 16, 2013, 08:34:41 PM

Name:    TheXev
Posts:    46
Activity:    46
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    March 02, 2013, 06:35:55 AM
Last Active:    April 11, 2014, 10:16:27 PM

Name:    Mooshire
Posts:    1299
Activity:    308
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    March 10, 2013, 12:57:13 AM
Last Active:    August 14, 2014, 04:08:23 PM

Name:    hanti
Posts:    108
Activity:    108
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    March 14, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 08:07:32 AM

Name:    ssinc
Posts:    541
Activity:    294
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    March 22, 2013, 03:48:34 PM
Last Active:    December 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM

Name:    Kaega
Posts:    157
Activity:    157
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    March 25, 2013, 02:53:31 AM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 03:30:32 PM

(1 trade)
Name:    True___Blue
Posts:    355
Activity:    355
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    March 28, 2013, 08:49:18 PM
Last Active:    August 08, 2014, 05:13:38 PM

Name:    elchorizo
Posts:    217
Activity:    182
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    April 02, 2013, 01:26:26 PM
Last Active:    July 26, 2014, 05:04:25 PM

Name:    fewerlaws
Posts:    8
Activity:    8
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    April 03, 2013, 10:19:35 PM
Last Active:    January 03, 2014, 01:16:10 AM

Name:    Swimmer63
Posts:    1151
Activity:    630
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    April 08, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 11:01:03 PM

Name:    locksmith9
Posts:    23
Activity:    23
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    April 08, 2013, 11:56:13 PM
Last Active:    April 10, 2014, 08:21:12 PM

Name:    Krellan
Posts:    105
Activity:    105
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    April 09, 2013, 03:37:25 AM
Last Active:    December 10, 2014, 03:35:27 AM

(1 trade)
Name:    Spendulus
Posts:    2866
Activity:    630
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    April 10, 2013, 07:35:13 AM
Last Active:    Today at 02:03:49 PM

(4 trades?)
Name:    MikeMike
Posts:    1316
Activity:    518
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    April 16, 2013, 02:14:51 PM
Last Active:    Today at 02:12:46 PM

Name:    bluespaceant
Posts:    6
Activity:    6
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    April 17, 2013, 08:52:45 PM
Last Active:    December 09, 2014, 11:47:52 AM

(2 deals)
Name:    Hiroaki
Posts:    237
Activity:    237
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    April 19, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Last Active:    October 07, 2014, 07:04:48 PM

(2 trades)
Name:    keeron
Posts:    180
Activity:    180
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    April 20, 2013, 01:01:16 AM
Last Active:    January 06, 2014, 02:09:17 AM

(1 deal)
Name:    Bigdaddyaz
Posts:    75
Activity:    75
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    April 20, 2013, 05:06:34 PM
Last Active:    July 13, 2014, 06:29:37 PM

Name:    palmface
Posts:    32
Activity:    32
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    April 22, 2013, 12:52:43 PM
Last Active:    November 29, 2014, 01:00:33 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    SpaceCadet
Posts:    164
Activity:    164
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    April 23, 2013, 04:14:23 PM
Last Active:    Today at 01:27:08 PM

Name:    photon
Posts:    25
Activity:    25
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    April 23, 2013, 05:15:22 PM
Last Active:    April 10, 2014, 11:57:32 AM

Name:    jdot007
Posts:    73
Activity:    73
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    April 29, 2013, 06:43:00 AM
Last Active:    December 05, 2014, 10:14:00 AM

Name:    mrtg
Posts:    29
Activity:    29
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    April 29, 2013, 07:11:55 AM
Last Active:    April 11, 2014, 08:08:26 PM

Name:    Plesk
Posts:    78
Activity:    78
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    May 09, 2013, 08:58:10 AM
Last Active:    November 18, 2014, 07:39:35 PM

Name:    aurel57
Posts:    667
Activity:    546
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    May 12, 2013, 07:01:01 AM
Last Active:    Today at 12:15:18 PM

(PW Reset)
Name:    gambitv
Posts:    260
Activity:    196
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    May 12, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
Last Active:    November 14, 2014, 10:55:43 AM

Name:    boyohi
Posts:    325
Activity:    168
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    May 13, 2013, 11:52:32 PM
Last Active:    Today at 01:50:36 PM

Name:    LaserHorse
Posts:    248
Activity:    140
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    May 14, 2013, 02:11:01 AM
Last Active:    August 21, 2014, 02:55:15 AM

Name:    slashopt
Posts:    12
Activity:    12
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    May 20, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
Last Active:    October 01, 2013, 12:48:07 PM

Name:    drofdelm
Posts:    39
Activity:    39
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 20, 2013, 03:35:00 PM
Last Active:    October 07, 2013, 11:49:15 AM

Name:    cdogster
Posts:    47
Activity:    47
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 21, 2013, 12:14:07 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 05:08:17 PM

Name:    DBOD
Posts:    36
Activity:    36
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 21, 2013, 01:03:38 PM
Last Active:    April 06, 2014, 03:18:22 AM

Name:    addzz
Posts:    61
Activity:    61
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    May 23, 2013, 10:17:36 AM
Last Active:    September 08, 2014, 06:48:24 PM

(15 posts!)
Name:    DustMite
Posts:    15
Activity:    15
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    May 25, 2013, 12:15:51 AM
Last Active:    October 20, 2014, 11:29:18 PM

Name:    pixl8tr
Posts:    310
Activity:    310
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    May 26, 2013, 11:12:12 AM
Last Active:    Today at 08:52:03 AM

(1 buy)
Name:    namoom
Posts:    17
Activity:    17
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    May 27, 2013, 08:23:57 PM
Last Active:    May 14, 2014, 11:50:38 PM

(1 trade)
Name:    blblr
Posts:    13
Activity:    13
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    May 28, 2013, 01:37:05 PM
Last Active:    February 17, 2014, 08:08:10 PM

Name:    arc45
Posts:    33
Activity:    33
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    May 29, 2013, 11:56:10 AM
Last Active:    February 25, 2014, 10:34:06 AM

Name:    smscotten
Posts:    286
Activity:    140
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    May 30, 2013, 02:39:00 PM
Last Active:    September 17, 2014, 05:17:54 PM

Name:    Cilantro
Posts:    19
Activity:    19
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 01, 2013, 02:03:26 AM
Last Active:    December 09, 2014, 11:01:13 PM

Name:    chadtn
Posts:    178
Activity:    178
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    June 01, 2013, 02:43:33 AM
Last Active:    September 15, 2014, 10:46:13 AM

Name:    kinger1331
Posts:    11
Activity:    11
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 03, 2013, 12:46:44 AM
Last Active:    June 16, 2014, 04:00:45 PM

(2 deals)
Name:    guytechie
Posts:    253
Activity:    253
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    June 03, 2013, 05:22:18 PM
Last Active:    Today at 10:27:10 AM

Name:    rumlazy
Posts:    199
Activity:    199
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    June 04, 2013, 12:55:43 PM
Last Active:    Today at 06:55:04 AM

Name:    fractalbc
Posts:    192
Activity:    192
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    June 05, 2013, 08:43:55 PM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 02:22:02 PM

Name:    fforforest
Posts:    56
Activity:    56
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    June 06, 2013, 05:33:15 PM
Last Active:    Today at 01:29:53 PM

Name:    KyrosKrane
Posts:    269
Activity:    269
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    June 09, 2013, 12:23:41 AM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 02:06:35 AM

Name:    rj11248
Posts:    4
Activity:    4
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 11, 2013, 02:30:08 PM
Last Active:    October 15, 2014, 12:18:31 PM

Name:    jaslo
Posts:    14
Activity:    14
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 14, 2013, 02:40:59 PM
Last Active:    October 09, 2014, 03:28:56 AM

Name:    BorisAlt
Posts:    310
Activity:    280
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    June 16, 2013, 09:31:20 AM
Last Active:    August 24, 2014, 04:57:03 PM

Name:    ASICSAUCE
Posts:    4
Activity:    4
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 16, 2013, 09:27:05 PM
Last Active:    December 10, 2014, 01:34:34 AM

Name:    steelcave
Posts:    11
Activity:    11
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    June 24, 2013, 03:06:44 PM
Last Active:    September 29, 2014, 06:35:28 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    Rotorgeek
Posts:    44
Activity:    44
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    June 24, 2013, 09:18:08 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 01:55:44 AM

Name:    buyer99
Posts:    81
Activity:    81
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    June 24, 2013, 11:47:06 PM
Last Active:    June 10, 2014, 08:12:20 PM

(1 trade)
Name:    daddyhutch
Posts:    59
Activity:    59
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    June 25, 2013, 06:00:38 PM
Last Active:    November 15, 2014, 12:04:13 PM

Name:    digeros
Posts:    264
Activity:    238
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    June 27, 2013, 07:00:02 PM
Last Active:    December 03, 2014, 03:46:35 AM

(2 deals)
Name:    west17m
Posts:    61
Activity:    61
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    June 27, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Last Active:    December 07, 2014, 03:50:44 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    Trillium
Posts:    744
Activity:    476
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    June 28, 2013, 11:38:52 AM
Last Active:    Today at 12:07:33 AM

Name:    ziggysisland
Posts:    4
Activity:    4
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    July 04, 2013, 10:19:40 PM
Last Active:    January 15, 2014, 08:43:16 PM

Name:    ryhan
Posts:    23
Activity:    23
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    July 12, 2013, 11:10:43 AM
Last Active:    September 21, 2013, 11:47:22 AM

(3 trades)
Name:    zac2013
Posts:    33
Activity:    33
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    July 17, 2013, 09:43:52 AM
Last Active:    November 16, 2014, 12:55:37 AM

(1 deal)
Name:    atomriot
Posts:    55
Activity:    55
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    July 25, 2013, 10:43:22 AM
Last Active:    October 15, 2014, 05:15:36 PM

Name:    metal_jacke1
Posts:    196
Activity:    126
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    August 02, 2013, 06:52:44 PM
Last Active:    September 08, 2014, 11:19:30 AM

(2 deals)
Name:    Apheration
Posts:    88
Activity:    88
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    August 07, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
Last Active:    October 28, 2014, 03:37:41 PM

Name:    spacebob
Posts:    13
Activity:    13
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    August 12, 2013, 11:24:34 AM
Last Active:    August 08, 2014, 11:35:04 AM

Name:    2byZi
Posts:    2
Activity:    2
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    August 13, 2013, 11:38:38 AM
Last Active:    September 27, 2013, 11:27:55 PM

Name:    BenTheRighteous
Posts:    32
Activity:    32
Position:    Jr. Member
Date Registered:    September 03, 2013, 07:53:21 PM
Last Active:    September 19, 2014, 04:09:37 PM

(9 posts!)
Name:    gsr18
Posts:    9
Activity:    9
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    September 13, 2013, 10:28:13 PM
Last Active:    October 16, 2014, 12:34:03 PM

(3 posts and on the Trust list)
Name:    Paddy
Posts:    3
Activity:    3
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    September 23, 2013, 09:12:32 PM
Last Active:    April 12, 2014, 10:32:35 PM

Name:    Jennifer Smith
Posts:    19
Activity:    19
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    September 26, 2013, 01:45:02 AM
Last Active:    September 20, 2014, 12:33:55 AM

Name:    J_Dubbs
Posts:    524
Activity:    238
Position:    Full Member
Date Registered:    November 16, 2013, 09:02:10 PM
Last Active:    August 14, 2014, 08:26:38 AM

(1 deal)
Name:    ldh37
Posts:    114
Activity:    114
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    November 28, 2013, 03:36:35 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 01:51:02 PM

Name:    thomslik
Posts:    10
Activity:    10
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    December 01, 2013, 02:02:20 PM
Last Active:    April 09, 2014, 09:13:44 PM

(2 deals)
Name:    argakiig
Posts:    400
Activity:    364
Position:    Sr. Member
Date Registered:    December 04, 2013, 06:41:48 AM
Last Active:    December 11, 2014, 10:42:52 PM

(1 deal)
Name:    Ski72
Posts:    72
Activity:    72
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    January 16, 2014, 01:48:04 PM
Last Active:    Today at 02:46:52 PM

Name:    Thai
Posts:    22
Activity:    22
Position:    Newbie
Date Registered:    February 21, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Last Active:    December 12, 2014, 12:19:04 AM

[1714784771]

1714784771

[1714784771]

1714784771

[Quickseller]

+1 on this.

Many of the people on his trust list should not be on the default trust network, which is giving them power that it is not approbate for them to have.

One thing to add is that you (CanaryInTheMine) recently removed someone from your trust list because they made an off the cuff response to an off topic thread saying they might sell their account in the future. I would say that the majority of the accounts above are potential accounts that could be sold in the future, some with the possibility that their owner has no idea of the power they hold and are selling.

[lili song]

was this case like this one ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822764.0
 I've ever ask about it

...
 I would say that the majority of the accounts above are potential accounts that could be sold in the future, some with the possibility that their owner has no idea of the power they hold and are selling.

The power are too great and I can fell it  

[SpanishSoldier]

Can someone please point me out the relationship between CanaryInTheMine & friedcat ? Are they some sort of business partner ? I found the following facts about them...

1. friedcat runs ASICminer and CanaryInTheMine leads group buys from it.

2. Anyone speaks against ASICminer or other companies run by friedcat gets thrown out of trust list of CanaryInTheMine or his descendants.

3. Rockminer, the ASICminer partner in AM hash project, is in the signature of CanaryInTheMine.

4. CanaryInTheMine is very supportive about most thing friedcat does...

Wow.  This is friedcat.

[CanaryInTheMine]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

[KWH]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list.
Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason.
Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales.

[malaimult]

It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust.

Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone.

The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals.

A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system.  

[CanaryInTheMine]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list.
Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason.
Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales.

if someone abuses the trust let me know. 

if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries.

[KWH]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list.
Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason.
Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales.

if someone abuses the trust let me know. 

if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries.

Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to.
I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add.

[CanaryInTheMine]

it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust.  Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread.  If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that.  I haven't seen abuse in this case.  What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.

It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust.

Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone.

The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals.

A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system.  

[KWH]

it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust.  Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread.  If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that.  I haven't seen abuse in this case.  What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.

It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust.

Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone.

The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals.

A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system.  

What scams have the many Newbies that only have feedback from your group buys stopped dead in their tracks?

[CanaryInTheMine]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list.
Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason.
Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales.

if someone abuses the trust let me know. 

if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries.

Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to.
I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add.

how can they be "rewarded" if you say some have no trades?  your logic is all over the place.  you have an agenda here.
thank you for your feedback and opinion.  i'll be more than happy to look into any actual abuses.

[KWH]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

This has little to do with stopping scammers but many on your circle of Trust are very questionable. I am still going through the posted list.
Also, you seem to be padding your Risked BTC amounts for some reason.
Again, I ask you to go through your lengthy list and reconsider your circle of Trust, far too many of these additions should not be there as it looks like you added them just because of sales.

if someone abuses the trust let me know.  

if i added just because of "sales" the list would probably have over a thousand entries.

Again, it's not just about abuse. You have added far too many Newbies and other accounts with very little trades. In doing so, it make you appear to be running your own Circle of Trust to reward buyers. Anyone can see the potential abuse this is leading to.
I officially request you review and prune out the list I have posted so far. I have many more to add.

how can they be "rewarded" if you say some have no trades?  your logic is all over the place.  you have an agenda here.
thank you for your feedback and opinion.  i'll be more than happy to look into any actual abuses.

Oh, they have trades, with you. I have no agenda other than fairness. You are polluting the Trust system with your group buyers. You are also padding your Risked BTC.
If they have no trades or deals, just how is it they appeared on your Trust?

[malaimult]

it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust.  Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread.  If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that.  I haven't seen abuse in this case.  What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.

It appears that Mabsark is abusing the trust system, but you ended up leaving his positive trust and adding someone to your trust list who previously gave him positive trust.

Having a large trust list does not do anything to stop scams unless they are actually able to use good judgment in spotting potential scams. Even if you were to ignore this fact, the majority of the people on your trust list have only given feedback to you, if anyone.

The result of your trust list is that you have what is essentially a circle of people who have given positive feedback to each-other who all appear to make themselves look trustworthy when they probably are not. This results in people being able to scam by having a somewhat legitimate reason to avoid using escrow for potential deals.

A large trust list also makes it very easy to "cry" scam in order to strong-arm someone to do what they want. Even if people are not abusing the trust system it will result in a lot of false scam reports when someone does not understand how to use the trust system.  

The people who share the opinions all have their interests aligned as they are all promoting AM1 on havelock, likely are all shareholders of AM1 (many have admitting to being so). They are also promoting their message almost in unison making it appear they are being controlled by one or few people.

He is also forcing the companies that he gave negative trust to prove they are not scamming, this deprives them of due process as due process requires that the aggressor provide evidence against the person they claim to have broken some rule. In other words it is up to Mabsark to give evidence that the companies are scamming or are trying to scam.

I have also not seen very many people on your trust list (if any) stop scams in their tracks.

[peligro]

Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.

For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-13   0.00000000      
I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user!

CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating.

[redsn0w]

Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.

For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-13   0.00000000      
I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user!

CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating.

What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person.

[peligro]

Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.

For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-13   0.00000000      
I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user!

CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating.

What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person.

I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

[Quickseller]

Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.

For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-13   0.00000000      
I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user!

CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating.

I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust.

If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam

[redsn0w]

....
I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal.

...

I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust.

If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam

Are you serious ? All this story only for a trust feedback to a reputable user ?

[malaimult]

Its a self feedback loop which is increasing CanaryInTheMine's trust rating.

For instance, redsn0w sent a positive rating today

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-13   0.00000000      
I trust CanaryInTheMine , he is an honest an reputable user!

CanaryInTheMine added redsn0w to his list which resulted in another trusted feedback for him. I think this is a flaw in the trust system which leads one level 1 member to improve his trust rating.

What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person.

The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased.

Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer?

[peligro]

....
I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal.

The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating.

This has nothing to do with you.

[John (John K.)]

....
I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal.

The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating.

This has nothing to do with you.

This. A flaw in the system would be that one in the DefaultTrust list could essentially increase his own trust by adding people that gave him trust outside of the list to his own trust list.

[redsn0w]

.....
The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased.

Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer?

It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him.  I've left the feedback after not before .

*and I also want to add :

I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist.

[malaimult]

.....
The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased.

Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer?

It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him.  I've left the feedback after not before .

*and I also want to add :

I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist.

Your right it is only one additional point. But this is also probably not the first time something like this has happened.

The group buy issue is probably having to do with the fact that people who participated in his group buys have generally left him positive feedback (because they had a positive trading experience).

[peligro]

.....
The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased.

Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer?

It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him.  I've left the feedback after not before .

*and I also want to add :

I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist.

As I said, this is not a problem on your end, and neither I am accusing that CanaryInTheMine deliberately tried to improve his rating. I was pointing out a possible mode of abuse of the trust system.

[Quickseller]

....
I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal.

The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating.

This has nothing to do with you.

This. A flaw in the system would be that one in the DefaultTrust list could essentially increase his own trust by adding people that gave him trust outside of the list to his own trust list.

From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work:

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.
-snip-

[Muhammed Zakir]

From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work:

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.
-snip-

This isn't really applicable as many persons don't add people who are in Default Trust list to their trust list unless they're making a custom one with depth 0.

   ~~MZ~~

[Quickseller]

From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work:

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.
-snip-

This isn't really applicable as many persons don't add people who are in Default Trust list to their trust list unless they're making a custom one with depth 0.

   ~~MZ~~

No this is applicable unless they do the above. For example CanaryInTheMine's trust rating will not be affected by anyone that is on his trust list and no one else's. If you were to receive 20 positive trust ratings, all by people who are on CanaryInTheMine's trust list and no one else's then my trust score would not turn green until you received a positive trust rating from someone who is on someone besides CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

[der_troll]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

If I may ask, why was i removed from your list then? I did no scam, I don't run any trading here all I did is gave negative trust to someone I think deserves it. Then you removed me from your trust list and you give positive trust rating to that same person. Don't say it's because  of my post in off topic thread as this was irrelevant comment.

Thank you

[TECSHARE]

I warned you all that TRUST MODERATION IS A FAILED POLICY that will result in this community being torn apart from the inside out.

See how fast you go from the one judging to the one being judged Canary? Enjoy your personal inquisition.

[malaimult]

it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust.  Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread.  If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that.  I haven't seen abuse in this case.  What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.

Looking at this statement again, and looking at the trust feedback you left for Mabsark, I see a big problem here. You are 100% correct that potential scammers will be stopped. However just because someone is a potential scammer does not mean they are actually scamming or actually trying to scam.

What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.

I would also ask you what percentage of your trust feedback is not on anyone else's trust list that is on default trust? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%? I would ask the same about friedcat

[erwin45hacked]

it doesn't appear that Mabsark is abusing his trust.  Highly respected members of the forum have looked at this issue and provided their opinions on a different thread.  If this isn't the case and it can shown and agreed by mods that he is abusing then go ahead and show that.  I haven't seen abuse in this case.  What I have seen is potential scammers getting pissed that they got stopped dead in their tracks.

Looking at this statement again, and looking at the trust feedback you left for Mabsark, I see a big problem here. You are 100% correct that potential scammers will be stopped. However just because someone is a potential scammer does not mean they are actually scamming or actually trying to scam.

What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.

I would also ask you what percentage of your trust feedback is not on anyone else's trust list that is on default trust? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%? I would ask the same about friedcat

this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"

this is much much better than leaving a negative feedback that pissed people of

well just my opinion tho

Regards,
Erwin

[Blazed]

I have to agree with the whole AM thing..all the investors are bashing anything not AM/AMHash. It seems like Canary adds a ridiculous amount of people to his trust network. I wonder what % of all depth 2 trusted people come from his list?

[Quickseller]

I have to agree with the whole AM thing..all the investors are bashing anything not AM/AMHash. It seems like Canary adds a ridiculous amount of people to his trust network. I wonder what % of all depth 2 trusted people come from his list?

66% most of them are on default trust list because of him alone

[Mabsark]

What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers.

Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!"

Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback.

this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"

On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research.

[erwin45hacked]

What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers.

Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!"

Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback.

this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"

On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research.

too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so?
not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"
speaking of puppet i like the way he do things really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk

Regards,
Erwin

[Mabsark]

too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so?
not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"
speaking of puppet i like the way he do things really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk

I've done some research. Other people with no connection to AM have done some research. We all came to our own conclusions that these are almost certainly scams. There are quite a few cloud mining services, the few I left negative feedback on are simply the worst of the worst.

Since you like the way Puppet does things, you might like to hear what he had to say on the matter:

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.

I've told all of these services that I'd remove the feedback if they provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. If they had any hashing power, they would quite easily be able to do that. This is not just an AM against the competition thing:

I give my vote of confidence to Mabsark.

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.

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.

That's 4 respected members of the community who agree and have no obvious affiliation with AM and I know Puppet and Raskul have stated that they don't have any. I think most people with a reasonable amount of experience with bitcoin mining would agree that the services Puppet listed as legit are legit, the ones he's listed as a ponzi are most likely a ponzi, and the ones in between are questionable to various degrees. It's better to warn people about these services before they get ripped off rather than waiting till afterwards then rubbing their noses in it. If the services are legitimate they can easily prove that. They refuse to do.

[Tomatocage]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

[TECSHARE]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?

[Blazed]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

I think they are referring to him adding so many people into his trust list (giving them depth 2 default trust). Not so much his feedback left for trades and group buys. Personally I trust him, but he does add by far the most people into lvl 2 trust.

[hilariousandco]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?

The irony. You ab/used the feedback system this way by leaving negative feedback in an attempt to get someone to remove theirs against you and leave you alone. It seems you don't mind abusing it so long as it's not done to you.

[funtotry]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

I think they are referring to him adding so many people into his trust list (giving them depth 2 default trust). Not so much his feedback left for trades and group buys. Personally I trust him, but he does add by far the most people into lvl 2 trust.

Tomato is referring to Canary adding many people to his trust list when it would really only be appropriate to leave positive trust feedback.

I have previously thought he is trustworthy but no longer do so after what has been uncovered in the 3 threads about him that are currently active in meta.   

[TECSHARE]

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?

The irony. You ab/used the feedback system this way by leaving negative feedback in an attempt to get someone to remove theirs against you and leave you alone. It seems you don't mind abusing it so long as it's not done to you.

There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff  protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you didn't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck red, and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY.

They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me.

[hilariousandco]

There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff  protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you did't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck read and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY.

They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me.

Yawn more irony and hypocrisy. I'm tired of your whining and responding to the same old tired bs. The biggest hypocrisy here is from you and you were fine abusing the system when it suited you but are now just inventing up conspiracy to suit your argument like every child who gets told off here for something that is their own wrongdoing. You abused the system to get your own way on your own terms. How did removing you from the trust protect the staff or their financial interests? It seems you were trying to protect yours by the abuse.



I suggest you use some of that and get over it.

[onewiseguy]

if someone on my list abuses the trust let me know and it will be handled appropriately.  several instances have been already dealt with before and if necessary they can be dealt with in the future...

the larger the trusted list is the more effective it is in producing correct feedback to root out scams on the forums.

a small trust list is useless in catching and stopping scams.

scammers of all kinds have been pissed lately because their scams are stopped quickly by vigilant members of the forums,  their objective is to eliminate obstacles to their scamming... if they can reduce the default trust list, they will only increase their scams.

sent you a pm

[dogie]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review

[TECSHARE]

There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff  protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you did't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck read and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY.

They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me.

Yawn more irony and hypocrisy. I'm tired of your whining and responding to the same old tired bs. The biggest hypocrisy here is from you and you were fine abusing the system when it suited you but are now just inventing up conspiracy to suit your argument like every child who gets told off here for something that is their own wrongdoing. You abused the system to get your own way on your own terms. How did removing you from the trust protect the staff or their financial interests? It seems you were trying to protect yours by the abuse.

A very professional response from the staff as usual. No one is forcing you to read my posts, you do an awful lot of crying about my posts for someone accusing me of being butthurt. I already explained how throwing me under a bus while allowing others to actually abuse the system heavily benefits staff. It draws attention away from the fact that this enforcement is for some users but not others and makes it appear as if you actually enforce these standards when enforcement is selective at best, all the while protecting your paychecks. You can make all the personal attacks against me you like, all it will do is demonstrate your lack of restraint and self control. You can call what I did an "abuse" all day, but I never tried to obfuscate what I did, and frankly I probably would have been better off lying to your faces and saying I thought Armis was a scammer, because that seems to be your only standard. I guess that is my fault for expecting a reasonable response from staff to a single complaint over 3 years while other users on the default trust have vast collections of complaints that go ignored by staff.

[Argwai96]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review

Probably another example as to why Canary should prune his trust list. There is no reason for someone to be on default trust list if they at least at one point have been an active trader and/or have called out a lot of scams

[jeffersonairplane]

if nothing else changes then I think Canary should at least take the time to prune his trust list. I am sure he is a busy guy and with so many people under his trust list, he does not have the time to keep tabs on each and every one. There are definitely a good number of people under Canary's trust list who should not be deemed "trustworthy" anymore. Pruning the trust list of members gone bad is the least Canary can do for the community. I have no further comment on anything else that has taken place on this thread other than the fact that the points brought up about the trust system is /slightly/ flawed.

[onewiseguy]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review

would be great if some one did something about this.

[peligro]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review

would be great if some one did something about this.

The holiday period is over so there should be some solution now.

CanaryInTheMine has a lot of complaints and I am surprised he is still on the depth 1. He has also shown earlier that in the Mabsark case that he is willing to remove others from his trust list if he feels that is bringing his place in the list in question.

[dogie]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904408.0 Probably another case to review

would be great if some one did something about this.

The holiday period is over so there should be some solution now.

CanaryInTheMine has a lot of complaints and I am surprised he is still on the depth 1. He has also shown earlier that in the Mabsark case that he is willing to remove others from his trust list if he feels that is bringing his place in the list in question.

Just for the record, I was just cross posting the threads because it seemed relavent to the discussion and hadn't been mentioned. I don't hold a position on that particular case (I haven't read it properly).

[MadZ]

Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing.

46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break 

[hilariousandco]

Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing.

46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break  

So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. 

[MadZ]

Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing.

46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break  

So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. 

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

  philipma1957
        dentldir
        CrazyGuy
        Unacceptable
        kano
        champbronc2
        Cablez
        davecoin
        RicRock
        Delarock
        iluvpcs
        crashoveride54902
        Stunna
        lazlopanaflex
        ssinc
        razorfishsl
        btceic
        Swimmer63
        buysolar
        SilentSonicBoom
        TookDk
        jc328
        Chris_Sabian
        DefaultTrust
        klintay
        stex2009
        Beastlymac
        boldar
        de_ixie
        Stratobitz
        EvilPanda
        Blazedout419
        btcxcg
        bronxnua
        DyslexicZombei
        tripppn
        xZork
        crocko
        mchu168
        itsrealfast
        Albertdroid
        MoreBloodWine
        BITMAIN
        CoinGeneral
        dance191
        RitzGrandCasino
        crowetic
        dyland
        pcfli
        Diddyu
        Zoomhash_michael
        RockDaddy
        SDRebel
        MunkeySpaz
        Xtra7973

He added them to his list.

[hilariousandco]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

[Muhammed Zakir]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.

P.S. Sorry, he was added by DefaultTrust too. I think theymos/badbear can resolve this. But he would still be in trust depth 2.

CanaryInTheMine
        theymos
        Gavin Andresen
        jgarzik
        Luke-Jr
        Miner-TE
        eleuthria
        luv2drnkbr
        Digigami
        gmaxwell
        E
        zapeta
        bitpop
        SebastianJu
        ipxtreme
        Philj
        os2sam
        yxt
        knybe
        conv3rsion
        bitcoin-rigs.com
        Vod
        dtmcnamara
        John (John K.)
        notme
        Mushroomized
        greeners
        dribbits
        echris1
        SaltySpitoon
        bitcoiner49er
        BadBear
        freshzive
        arklan
        glendall
        Pistachio
        tarrant_01
        tbcoin
        ElideN
        friedcat
        TheJuice
        Bees Brothers
        Christoban
        Stale
        af_newbie
        eroxors
        camolist
        MrTeal
        cncguru
        Mendacium
        PsychoticBoy
        Dabs
        mem
        Namworld
        lky_svn
        420
        mr2dave
        DobZombie
        Adrian-x
        gektek
        johnny5
        dyingdreams
        Zillions
        phrog
        Domrada
        Mapuo
        philipma1957
        jborkl
        RicRock
        jmutch
        MonocleMan
        b!z
        CoinHoarder
        absinth
        mitty
        (^_^)
        soy
        super3
        iluvpcs
        batt01
        xstr8guy
        MJGrae
        mobile
        nubbins
        ThickAsThieves
        hephaist0s
        BitcoinValet
        Timzim103
        Rounder
        Nemo1024
        TheXev
        ibminer
        Mooshire
        Benny1985
        mrbrt
        hanti
        ssinc
        Kaega
        finlof
        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
        Chris_Sabian
        xjack
        CommanderVenus
        daddyfatsax
        Plesk
        helipotte
        aurel57
        gambitv
        boyohi
        LaserHorse
        joeventura
        xhomerx10
        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
        BrianDeery
        ziggysisland
        devthedev
        ryhan
        zac2013
        atomriot
        metal_jacke1
        Apheration
        johoe
        spacebob
        2byZi
        terrapinflyer
        BenTheRighteous
        gsr18
        Paddy
        Jennifer Smith
        BITMAIN
        J_Dubbs
        00Smurf
        firejuan
        ldh37
        thomslik
        argakiig
        Cheeseater
        ManeBjorn
        redsn0w
        Ski72
        suchmoon
        Thai
        KaChingCoinDev
        sjc1490
        FACTOM

   ~~MZ~~

[MadZ]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.

   ~~MZ~~

No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.

No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it.

You missed my line just below that! I get it! So now 2 people in the list but CanaryInTheMine has better history, he can still be in the list if he remove the users who shouldn't be in the list.

   ~~MZ~~

[Muhammed Zakir]

Just removed philipma1957 from my list. I suggest everyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the list to remove him from your list, just add ~ before his name in your list: ~philipma1957 .




Actual trusted feedbacks:




   ~~MZ~~

[Quickseller]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

he was added very recently. I noticed it last night. To be fair he probably added most/all these people prior to being trusted by default trust. The effect of his actions are very different because prior to him being on this list means that his list does not affect what most others see.

It looks like he is a Spanish moderator so him being trusted by default trust will allow people in the Spanish section more benefit from the trust system

[hilariousandco]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.

   ~~MZ~~

No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it.

Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's?

he was added very recently. I
noticed it last night. To be fair he probably added most/all these people prior to being trusted by default trust. The effect of his actions are very different because prior to him being on this list means that his list does not affect what most others see.

It looks like he is a Spanish moderator so him being trusted by default trust will allow people in the Spanish section more benefit from the trust system

It must've been yesterday because I only noticed my feedback go up one today (because someone he trusts is now on the trusted list).

And who's a Spanish mod?

[redsn0w]

...
Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's?

I don't know how the trust system works (I mean the code) but maybe theymos added it , or am I wrong ?

[peligro]

At the least, the trust system should be changed so that all those on depth 1 can not improve their own trust rating as CanaryInTheMine did by trusting redsn0w.

[Muhammed Zakir]

This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?

He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.

No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it.

Who else added him? I can only see him on Canary's?

Theymos/Badbear added him as he is trust depth 1 and also, he is trusted by Canary. But I don't know who added him first.

And, I don't think he is a mod. @Quickseller : Any mistake from your side? Name changed?

   ~~MZ~~

[Quickseller]

It must've been yesterday because I only noticed my feedback go up one today (because someone he trusts is now on the trusted list).

And who's a Spanish mod?

i think it is actually dserrano5 not Phillip (my mistake). They were both added to default trust recently, I had never heard of either of them before seeing them on default trust.

[Muhammed Zakir]

At the least, the trust system should be changed so that all those on depth 1 can not improve their own trust rating as CanaryInTheMine did by trusting redsn0w.

redsn0w is in Canary's trust list. I think changing trust system can't be done as there is no alternative system which can atleast match current one but IMHO the faults what you're pointing can only be corrected by making default trust depth to 1.

   ~~MZ~~

[MadZ]

Has anything been done to address this issue? Should I make a separate topic since this one was originally about CanaryInTheMine?

[hilariousandco]

The philipma one? He seems to have removed at least a couple of people from his list, noticeably Beastlymac and RitzGrandCasino (the latter who's feedback was negatively and unfairly effecting another user).

[needFREElunch]

Has anything been done to address this issue? Should I make a separate topic since this one was originally about CanaryInTheMine?

A separate discussion should probably be opened. I somewhat doubt that anything will come of it though as he was recently added to the trust list of default trust so theymos probably knew who he had on his trust list before adding him.

I might speculate that adding him could precede CanaryInTheMine being removed

[peligro]

Back to CanaryInTheMine, gambitv is still on the list. Onewiseguy's posts indicates that gambitv abused his power and tried to extort, but that issue seems to have been ignored by the admins.

[Beastlymac]

The philipma one? He seems to have removed at least a couple of people from his list, noticeably Beastlymac and RitzGrandCasino (the latter who's feedback was negatively and unfairly effecting another user).

I wasn't aware that he was added to depth 1. I wonder why i was removed, all feedback i have ever left has been justified.

[hilariousandco]

Who was added, philipma? He was added yesterday. Wern't you on the defaulttrust before but removed for some reason (think I read from you before this happened)? He may have trimmed his trust after being put on or maybe someone requested he removed you, but this is just speculation.

[Beastlymac]

Who was added, philipma? He was added yesterday. Wern't you on the defaulttrust before but removed for some reason (think I read from you before this happened)? He may have trimmed his trust after being put on or maybe someone requested he removed you, but this is just speculation.

I was on theymos trust list before bbxx claimed the feedback that i left on his account was an act of "harassment" and "unjust" and he kept spamming the forum with lies (libelling me) until theymos removed me. I am under the impression that bbxx repeatedly spammed theymos until theymos couldn't be bothered with it anymore and just removed me. After i was removed bbxx admitted that his brother wasn't entitled to anything and that shows that he intentionally lied to have me removed. I think that he has probably done the same thing again but that is just speculation.


I covered it all here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768105.0

I only had the time to write the whole dealing up after theymos removed me and i don't think that he has ever read through it.


The issue was that my feedback was apparently based on me "lying" (according to bbxx) but all what i stated in my feedback that i left on his account was proven through evidence i had compiled.

[TECSHARE]

Nubbins has yet again abused the default trust to settle his personal issues by replacing the negative feedback he removed (so he would not get removed). What excuse do you have for not removing him from your trust now Canary? It seems like some people get more chances than others around here, even when they demonstrate their willingness to intentionally abuse the system.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935984.msg10366822#msg10366822