Questions for CanaryInTheMine

[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.