redsn0w and others

[printshop]

I'm getting a little tired of the redsn0w/vod/etc. trust game. These people need to be removed from default trust. But (removed)'s accusation of trust buying is what pushed me to post this.

I was negrated by vod for asking for a loan as a newbie*. I was very careful to read the escrow and collateral terms stickied at the top of the lending page. Yet I was negrated without a chance to discuss or defend my position, based on a misunderstanding vod had. Vod has still not removed his negrate despite his reasoning being self-evidently false.

Next redsn0w negrated me solely because of what vod said. Redsnow was rather mocking in PM. I think he's sent me three unsolicited PMs so far, I don't really have an interest in talking with him. But I did negrate them both for abuses of the trust system.

In the meantime of this, I took out and repaid a loan with a forum member despite vod and redsnow's childish behavior.

Fast forward, I recently negrated redsnow 0 risked BTC for his screw-up handling the moreia case. This is my only connection to the moreia case. I negrated him as a warning to others that he should not be trusted as escrow. My rationale is below**. However, now (removed) has negrated me for selling negative trust. For a reference he points at two users selling negative trust who are not me.

This situation tires me. Just so you all know, *I am not a newbie, I have been here for years, and as printshop I run several large assets on NXT AE. I plan on being here as printshop and others for a very long time. Trust is not a commodity for you to flippantly throw in the face of others.

My rationale for tagging redsnow is not selling negative trust. (removed) is lying and his reference does not point to anything to do with me:

"Yeah that might an issue..not sure how he will handle that. I would eat the .8 if I were the escrow...exactly why I avoid escrowing."
Blazedout419 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10005835#msg10005835)

"That's a mistake on your part redsn0w.. Whenever you escrow an account (or anything) you must ensure it is in your FULL control."
marcotheminer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=147773)

"I agree with marco,its a mistake on your part,"
erwin45hacked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10003916#msg10003916)

"This is a serious breach, redsn0w. As an escrow you should be on top of these things."
Magic8Ball (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10003954#msg10003954)

"Well seems redsn0w might get screwed on this one."
Blazedout419 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134378)

"Failed verification. You're a scammer."
Tomatocage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=37522)

"Verification failed.
You are not redsn0w.
You are a scammer. "
Scamalert (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=213255)

"I think it's an expensive mistake Redsn0w made. He should be more careful with people's accounts, but I'm sure he learned his lesson."
Sumerian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10005852#msg10005852)

"I would say that redsn0w has been added as someone who I would not deem trustworthy, nor would I trust to escrow a transaction."
charlieSheen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10007169#msg10007169)

Hopefully U learned from this experience! As an professional escrow provider, u know ur reputation will be easily ruined by any simple mistake! 

[1715310865]

1715310865

[1715310865]

1715310865

[1715310865]

1715310865

[charlieSeen]

Redsn0w tends to only point out scams that everyone should see or scams that he is told about (he usually doesn't require evidence for this). The only reason he is on default trust list is because he gave CanaryInTheMine positive trust a while back.

Devthedev has removed his trust.

Vod is very good at spotting scams and calling out scammers. His feedback is accurate as you were buying trust.

Your trust rating to Redsn0w is accurate because you are right he should be more careful with others' property. I am actually surprised that the community did not react more negatively towards him (maybe because he did not have enough time to 'make it right' for all parties involved before the situation resolved itself)

[printshop]

Redsn0w tends to only point out scams that everyone should see or scams that he is told about (he usually doesn't require evidence for this). The only reason he is on default trust list is because he gave CanaryInTheMine positive trust a while back.

[...] has removed his trust.

Vod is very good at spotting scams and calling out scammers. His feedback is accurate as you were buying trust.

Your trust rating to Redsn0w is accurate because you are right he should be more careful with others' property. I am actually surprised that the community did not react more negatively towards him (maybe because he did not have enough time to 'make it right' for all parties involved before the situation resolved itself)

No. Vod thought I was buying trust because he thought I didn't need the loan. His feedback states "By his own admission, he does not need loans because he has the BTC to use as collateral. He *requires* you to leave him positive trust after he repays the loan or he will leave you negative feedback."

Neither of this is accurate. I explained why I needed the loan several times and why I was willing to use LTC as collateral. If you look at the reference he points to, I ask that positive trust be given to me as a courtesy. This is not about trust buying. Prior to the negative feedback I asked Vod to discuss with me how I should word a loan request to satisfy his criteria. I pointed to the escrow/collateral sticky at the top of the forums several times but instead of responding to me and helping me understand, he ignored me and negrated me. I view this as unacceptable behavior.

[MadZ]

Redsn0w tends to only point out scams that everyone should see or scams that he is told about (he usually doesn't require evidence for this). The only reason he is on default trust list is because he gave CanaryInTheMine positive trust a while back.

[...] has removed his trust.

Vod is very good at spotting scams and calling out scammers. His feedback is accurate as you were buying trust.

Your trust rating to Redsn0w is accurate because you are right he should be more careful with others' property. I am actually surprised that the community did not react more negatively towards him (maybe because he did not have enough time to 'make it right' for all parties involved before the situation resolved itself)

No. Vod thought I was buying trust because he thought I didn't need the loan. His feedback states "By his own admission, he does not need loans because he has the BTC to use as collateral. He *requires* you to leave him positive trust after he repays the loan or he will leave you negative feedback."

Neither of this is accurate. I explained why I needed the loan several times and why I was willing to use LTC as collateral. If you look at the reference he points to, I ask that positive trust be given to me as a courtesy. This is not about trust buying. Prior to the negative feedback I asked Vod to discuss with me how I should word a loan request to satisfy his criteria. I pointed to the escrow/collateral sticky at the top of the forums several times but instead of responding to me and helping me understand, he ignored me and negrated me. I view this as unacceptable behavior.

You were clearly trying to buy trust, here is a direction quote from your loan request:

Once the interest is paid to you at the end of the loan period (within 48 hrs), you must give positive feedback (with a reference) for the full amount of the loan. Failure to give positive feedback will result in you breaking the terms of our contract and I will get to keep the money you lent me. If this is not possible for some reason you agree to receive a scammer tag until I am paid or positive feedback is left on my account for this loan.

Contractual obligation to leave positive trust under threat of default is not "a courtesy", it is trust buying, and you deserve the negative feedback.

[charlieSeen]

Redsn0w tends to only point out scams that everyone should see or scams that he is told about (he usually doesn't require evidence for this). The only reason he is on default trust list is because he gave CanaryInTheMine positive trust a while back.

[...] has removed his trust.

Vod is very good at spotting scams and calling out scammers. His feedback is accurate as you were buying trust.

Your trust rating to Redsn0w is accurate because you are right he should be more careful with others' property. I am actually surprised that the community did not react more negatively towards him (maybe because he did not have enough time to 'make it right' for all parties involved before the situation resolved itself)

No. Vod thought I was buying trust because he thought I didn't need the loan. His feedback states "By his own admission, he does not need loans because he has the BTC to use as collateral. He *requires* you to leave him positive trust after he repays the loan or he will leave you negative feedback."

Neither of this is accurate. I explained why I needed the loan several times and why I was willing to use LTC as collateral. If you look at the reference he points to, I ask that positive trust be given to me as a courtesy. This is not about trust buying. Prior to the negative feedback I asked Vod to discuss with me how I should word a loan request to satisfy his criteria. I pointed to the escrow/collateral sticky at the top of the forums several times but instead of responding to me and helping me understand, he ignored me and negrated me. I view this as unacceptable behavior.

I have read the thread in question. You were buying trust. You originally required that trust be left for you and the lack of trust being left would result in you not repaying the loan (you later dropped this requirement after you were given negative trust). You had posted that you were considering to buy LTC with your BTC to use as collateral. You claimed that you wanted to buy more LTCgear shares however your scheme resulted in you having less funds available to pay for them and as a result your request (and reason) was illogical.

[Quickseller]

but you are asking to borrow BTC in order to spend BTC how would doing that benefit you?

I understand how borrowing BTC that is secured by NXT would help you (as I explained how it would help others who are  wanting to use alt coins as collateral), but a BTC loan that is secured by BTC does not make sense to me

EDIT: also for clarification, I did not ask to borrow money from the OP, I was offering to lend money to the OP

EDIT2: I would also be curious to know if the OP can sign a message from an address containing at least 1 BTC or 53k NXT

I still have not heard back from you regarding the bolded quote

[printshop]

I have read the thread in question. You were buying trust. You originally required that trust be left for you and the lack of trust being left would result in you not repaying the loan (you later dropped this requirement after you were given negative trust). You had posted that you were considering to buy LTC with your BTC to use as collateral. You claimed that you wanted to buy more LTCgear shares however your scheme resulted in you having less funds available to pay for them and as a result your request (and reason) was illogical.

No, I removed the condition while in discussion over my first loan request with John. K, Quickseller, Vod and others. ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895901.msg9861654#msg9861654

I then left Vod negative trust to which he replied in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895901.msg9861818#msg9861818 "That is not the basis on which I left the feedback.  It's because the only reason you are taking out the loans is to get positive feedback from others - i.e. buying trust."

His statement is not that I required people to leave me positive feedback. It should be clear from the timeline I did not require people to leave me positive feedback.

Vod's accusation that I was trust buying is that I did not need the loan because I had liquid collateral.

This was a misunderstanding by vod as shown here; ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906763.msg9968031#msg9968031

Furthermore it was very clearly advertised that I wanted a loan to invest in hashie.co and other cloud mining. If vod was unsure of my reasoning before, then he certainly must be aware of it now since I have taken out a loan and repaid it despite this fiasco. What is Vod's problem?

[printshop]

but you are asking to borrow BTC in order to spend BTC how would doing that benefit you?

I understand how borrowing BTC that is secured by NXT would help you (as I explained how it would help others who are  wanting to use alt coins as collateral), but a BTC loan that is secured by BTC does not make sense to me

EDIT: also for clarification, I did not ask to borrow money from the OP, I was offering to lend money to the OP

EDIT2: I would also be curious to know if the OP can sign a message from an address containing at least 1 BTC or 53k NXT

I still have not heard back from you regarding the bolded quote

If you are asking if I am an asset issuer yes, but I can't really use OPM to finance my personal investments. What would signing such a message prove? (BTW BearMining alone is worth over 3 million NXT/150 BTC)

[Quickseller]

but you are asking to borrow BTC in order to spend BTC how would doing that benefit you?

I understand how borrowing BTC that is secured by NXT would help you (as I explained how it would help others who are  wanting to use alt coins as collateral), but a BTC loan that is secured by BTC does not make sense to me

EDIT: also for clarification, I did not ask to borrow money from the OP, I was offering to lend money to the OP

EDIT2: I would also be curious to know if the OP can sign a message from an address containing at least 1 BTC or 53k NXT

I still have not heard back from you regarding the bolded quote

If you are asking if I am an asset issuer yes, but I can't really use OPM to finance my personal investments. What would signing such a message prove? (BTW BearMining alone is worth over 3 million NXT/150 BTC)

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

[printshop]

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

Ahh well sure, yes I can, but again I don't see how this is relevant to redsn0w. Please don't post off-topic replies in the Meta forum.

[Quickseller]

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

Ahh well sure, yes I can, but again I don't see how this is relevant to redsn0w. Please don't post off-topic replies in the Meta forum.

It is not off topic. Your lack of ability to sign such a message would further support the negative trust you were given

[Vortex20000]

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

Ahh well sure, yes I can, but again I don't see how this is relevant to redsn0w. Please don't post off-topic replies in the Meta forum.

It is not off topic. Your lack of ability to sign such a message would further support the negative trust you were given

Please do sign this message. It would prove your case.

[printshop]

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

Ahh well sure, yes I can, but again I don't see how this is relevant to redsn0w. Please don't post off-topic replies in the Meta forum.

It is not off topic. Your lack of ability to sign such a message would further support the negative trust you were given

Please do sign this message. It would prove your case.

I don't think it will prove anything, as it would have nothing to do with redsn0w and vod abusing the system.

Further, it should be obvious I am printshop from nxtforum, even if only because lihuajkl and I used Satoshi (from nxtforum) as escrow. That, and the collateral was sent from the DailyTrade asset and returned to the SafeHash asset (both owned by me). But if you need further proof and I can't imagine why, here's a transaction sent from BearMining (another asset I listed) which contains the message "Fancy that. It's me. I guess that proves my case then, vortex?" (nxtreporting.com/?a=4135646396597145944)

[Vortex20000]

That you actually were in control of the amount of collateral you were claiming to be willing to offer

Ahh well sure, yes I can, but again I don't see how this is relevant to redsn0w. Please don't post off-topic replies in the Meta forum.

It is not off topic. Your lack of ability to sign such a message would further support the negative trust you were given

Please do sign this message. It would prove your case.

I don't think it will prove anything, as it would have nothing to do with redsn0w and vod abusing the system.

Further, it should be obvious I am printshop from nxtforum, even if only because lihuajkl and I used Satoshi (from nxtforum) as escrow. That, and the collateral was sent from the DailyTrade asset and returned to the SafeHash asset (both owned by me). But if you need further proof and I can't imagine why, here's a transaction sent from BearMining (another asset I listed) which contains the message "Fancy that. It's me. I guess that proves my case then, vortex?" (nxtreporting.com/?a=4135646396597145944)

The more the merrier!

But yes, to me, that's enough.

[screwUdriver]

I don't think it will prove anything, as it would have nothing to do with redsn0w and vod abusing the system.

Further, it should be obvious I am printshop from nxtforum, even if only because lihuajkl and I used Satoshi (from nxtforum) as escrow. That, and the collateral was sent from the DailyTrade asset and returned to the SafeHash asset (both owned by me). But if you need further proof and I can't imagine why, here's a transaction sent from BearMining (another asset I listed) which contains the message "Fancy that. It's me. I guess that proves my case then, vortex?" (nxtreporting.com/?a=4135646396597145944)

For those of us who are not as familiar with how NXT works, I think a signed message (with today's date) would be more appropriate. I know for certain that it is possible to sign messages with NXT and as most people should know you can sign messages with a bitcoin address.

If you cannot sign such messages then their trust would be correct but their comment would be incorrect. If you cannot sign a such messages then it probably means that you were hoping to con someone into sending you the funds for a loan first while promising that you will send the collateral as soon as you receive the loan

[redsn0w]

I haven't abused the trust system. My feedback is accurate but (yesterday) you sold "negative feedback" however if  you don't want to remove it ,don't worry it is not problem .

The situation of yesterday was only a mistake of the email  address and the community helped me and we have all resolved it.


* now if you want you can stop , I've removed the negative feedback.  ** can you sign a message from one of your two addresses ( btc or nxt)? 

[printshop]

I haven't abused the trust system. My feedback is accurate but (yesterday) you sold "negative feedback" however if  you don't want to remove it ,don't worry it is not problem .

The situation of yesterday was only a mistake of the email  address and the community helped me and we have all resolved it.

* now if you want you can stop , I've removed the negative feedback.  ** can you sign a message from one of your two addresses ( btc or nxt)? 

Well I removed the negative feedback about the escrow, but you probably should have caught that, as a trusted escrow. I mainly removed it because I believe everyone is allowed to make one or two mistakes. There are dozens of quotes throughout history of the sum, you cannot learn but from your mistakes.

For me, no, I didn't sell negative feedback. I left the escrow feedback as a riskless negative feedback -- a warning to others. Kind of like what you do. But, I can be wrong as anyone can. And you have offered recourse to me for the "trust buying" stuff. That's very important. If someone leaves negative feedback with no discussion and no way to get out that's not a good thing. But you did the right thing, at least after we talked about it you removed it. That shows that you can be trusted, because as time goes by you move towards a more accurate trust model.

I learned something from all this too.

[Magic8Ball]

"This is a serious breach, redsn0w. As an escrow you should be on top of these things."
Magic8Ball (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10003954#msg10003954)

I see my name here. I would like to point out that I was the first to call out printshop on his loan attempt which seemed to me as equivalent to buying trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895901.msg9860419#msg9860419)

He has since changed his terms, and also the collateral, but I would be careful in lending him. There are lots of cases where loans were gradually built up and then defaulted.

[TECSHARE]

This community is far too eager to engage in mob action, and the staff foster this atmosphere. Since they can quite literally just negate any negatives they receive, this is not a problem for them. This is having an extremely destructive effect on this community, and will continue to do so as long as staff support and condone these kinds of blind inquisitions against users with littler or no evidence or reason. It is a whole lot easier to destroy a community than to build one, unfortunately the staff probably wont realize this until it is too late.

[peligro]

This community is far too eager to engage in mob action, and the staff foster this atmosphere. Since they can quite literally just negate any negatives they receive, this is not a problem for them. This is having an extremely destructive effect on this community, and will continue to do so as long as staff support and condone these kinds of blind inquisitions against users with littler or no evidence or reason. It is a whole lot easier to destroy a community than to build one, unfortunately the staff probably wont realize this until it is too late.

Give it a rest, this is now getting tiring. All you post here is to lament how bad the staff are manipulating the trust system, and if you continue  like this others are not going to value your opinion. Just my 2 satoshis.