Marcotheminer the Ban Evader

[SignatureSpam2015]

Upon information and belief, marcotheminer was banned on or about 5 March, 2015 for a period of 10 days. Approximately two days have passed since the ban was imposed.

Some of you may not be surprised about the ban because he likes to spam with his paid signature. What may be more surprising is that his ban did not stop him from spamming his paid signature with many shitty posts.

As far as one can tell DeboraMeeks is being used to spam many sections of the wonderful forum by no one other then marcotheminer.

How you ask, do I know that marcotheminer and DeboraMeeks are the same person? The answer: magic. If you want to see a magic show then continue on reading..........

It is very well known that marcotheminer likes to reuse addresses. His "personal" address is 12hYBWiPqfwdveGzpbRdGxeqnoMcNvGNSq. He posted it among many other places, here. What is not as well known is that he is very bad at coin control. Look at TXID e8a5aebeb477dff9370d3693c1856627aa9d8210d68590a465d9846d078e82b1, you should notice that it was signed with lot of addresses, because it was signed with 10 addresses, and contains 49 inputs. One of those 10 addresses is 19iNZYPpZn8BkCxDs1wdrNUTr7ieM6wra8. This address was not on any actual posts made by DeboraMeeks, however it was quoted many times as having posted it by numerous people. Examples of the above address being quoted are here, here, and my favorite, here. Granted, it is possible that the account has been sold recently, and the password to the account changed 3 days ago, however if you look at the BTC address of the profile, you will see that 19iNZYPpZn8BkCxDs1wdrNUTr7ieM6wra8 is still there - the account was probably not sold - it is probably using tor to connect to the forum though. TOR is a network that helps people maintain anonymity.

This is not the first time he evaded his ban either. For those of you that want to see that magic trick, you will have to wait until next time.

This is the conclusion of Part 5 of Pistol Pete's series.
Part 1: Spammathon: Brought to you by Candystripes (or was it Marco all along)
Part 2: Whatever Happened to Pierre11?
Part 3: Marco the account thief
Part 4: Marco the signature spammer
Part 5: Banned:Marco the signature campaign spammer: A look at past and present campaign "mistakes"


Stay tuned for the next part of this series:
Part 6: marcotheminer's alts: spammed beyond belief

[1714955505]

1714955505

[1714955505]

1714955505

[1714955505]

1714955505

[1714955505]

1714955505

[cakir]

I'm curious, is that mean marcotheminer's all accounts will be permanently banned?

If he'll be permanently banned and as we know he controls yussuf89 hero account which was stollen and prooved ownership by Zeki.
Can this account be given back to Zeki who's the real owner?...

[CrackedLogic]

I'm curious, is that mean marcotheminer's all accounts will be permanently banned?

If he'll be permanently banned and as we know he controls yussuf89 hero account which was stollen and prooved ownership by Zeki.
Can this account be given back to Zeki who's the real owner?...

He will be banned permanently on all accounts, including marcotheminer. Zeki may have to pay a fee to get unbanned if the account gets banned.

[Quickseller]

I'm curious, is that mean marcotheminer's all accounts will be permanently banned?

If he'll be permanently banned and as we know he controls yussuf89 hero account which was stollen and prooved ownership by Zeki.
Can this account be given back to Zeki who's the real owner?...

Generally speaking if you have a relatively short ban then ban evading will likely only get your ban extended, probably to something along the lines of 30 or 60 days, however repetitive ban evasions will likely eventually lead to a perm ban. According to the above he banned and evaded his ban previously so it could be a perm ban.

I think the chances of zeki getting his account back unscathed would go up substantially if marco is perm banned. It would at least give zeki much more leverage in negotiating with marco regarding getting it back

[crazyearner]

Maybe an idea would be to have when a new member joins here actually have an auto bot post rules and guidelines on posting would clear a lot of the problems up. He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.

What should  happen is that when a member joins here gets a list of posting rules pm rules and so forth. I have it set on my site that when someone joins they instantly get sent a welcome message outlining rules and before even making first post they get sent to rules of each section and then make agreement that have read and understand them. After if is reported for it gets suspended and contacted and asked why this has happened yet you where fully aware after agreeing on rules. And people who say oh I just clicked on agreed then I permanently ban as they didn't bother to read. I d rather have quality members than having people who just want to get on with posting and not following any rules. Depending on situation I will lift bans or warn depending on many factors most I just ban due to the type of messages that where getting sent.

[shorena]

Maybe an idea would be to have when a new member joins here actually have an auto bot post rules and guidelines on posting would clear a lot of the problems up. He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.

Im pretty sure marco knew that it was risky. Wasnt he banned for exactly that in the past?

What should  happen is that when a member joins here gets a list of posting rules pm rules and so forth. I have it set on my site that when someone joins they instantly get sent a welcome message outlining rules and before even making first post they get sent to rules of each section and then make agreement that have read and understand them.

When did you fully read the ToS of some homepage the last time? It makes no difference whether you slap the rules in someones face or not. The rules here are not set in stone anyway and it takes a while to understand how mods interpret them. I think its similar to joining a new circle of people that already know eachother. You either ignore their customs and do not get accepted or you take the time to understand how the group works and start to fit in. I know the analogy is a bit lacking because of the number of people involved, but the behaviour of the newcommer is whats important and frankly marco has been here longer than me, there are no more excuses.

After if is reported for it gets suspended and contacted and asked why this has happened yet you where fully aware after agreeing on rules. And people who say oh I just clicked on agreed then I permanently ban as they didn't bother to read. I d rather have quality members than having people who just want to get on with posting and not following any rules. Depending on situation I will lift bans or warn depending on many factors most I just ban due to the type of messages that where getting sent.

[cakir]

-snip-
 He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.
-snip-

I don't think his ban depends on only that reason.
As far as I see; (I've also wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10679442#msg10679442 )
Marcotheminer spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
He had an obsession about being the 100th page's first poster and keep posted same gif repeatedly.

Lot's of his messages were deleted in a few hours, What do you think you get lots of reports from same person in such a short time?

[michaeladair]

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

[Lethn]

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

Same, hope this is for a legit reason, he had positive trust and everything.

[crazyearner]

-snip-
 He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.
-snip-

I don't think his ban depends on only that reason.
As far as I see; (I've also wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10679442#msg10679442 )
Marcotheminer spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
He had an obsession about being the 100th page's first poster and keep posted same gif repeatedly.

Lot's of his messages were deleted in a few hours, What do you think you get lots of reports from same person in such a short time?

Well he did remove some of them so he could indeed be on the 100th page and the first post of it. If it was me I would of liked to do the same thing as 100 pages on a section is a milestone for some and like to have the option to make the first post on the 100th page.

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

He is  a good leader but some of the things that had been done or so mods and admins did not like.

I like others think he is a good leader. Some of the things that where done am sure he did not mean any harm other than to aler other managers of his services he has running so that other camping managers can use the bot that has been created for the campaign and he has actually done right in now creating and making a separate announcement thread than to keep on posting in other campaigns or pming. I just hope that Marc can see the light and continue the signature campaign for them as he has sure put a lot of work hours into getting it to where it is from having monthly pay to getting a bot to read up all the posts and counted sections and now making into weekly pay too with increased payments.

[ajareselde]

This seams quite personal, and why are u hiding behind obviously an alt account?
If forum staff believes these charges to be true and valid , they will react acorrdingly, im sure, and im not defending him against what you say, but
all i will say is that hes not that bad member.
He was first off banned because he wated to share his bot with other sig. campaign managers, was he not ?

cheers

[cakir]

-snip-
 He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.
-snip-

I don't think his ban depends on only that reason.
As far as I see; (I've also wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10679442#msg10679442 )
Marcotheminer spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
He had an obsession about being the 100th page's first poster and keep posted same gif repeatedly.

Lot's of his messages were deleted in a few hours, What do you think you get lots of reports from same person in such a short time?

Well he did remove some of them so he could indeed be on the 100th page and the first post of it. If it was me I would of liked to do the same thing as 100 pages on a section is a milestone for some and like to have the option to make the first post on the 100th page.

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

He is  a good leader but some of the things that had been done or so mods and admins did not like.

I like others think he is a good leader. Some of the things that where done am sure he did not mean any harm other than to aler other managers of his services he has running so that other camping managers can use the bot that has been created for the campaign and he has actually done right in now creating and making a separate announcement thread than to keep on posting in other campaigns or pming. I just hope that Marc can see the light and continue the signature campaign for them as he has sure put a lot of work hours into getting it to where it is from having monthly pay to getting a bot to read up all the posts and counted sections and now making into weekly pay too with increased payments.

Nope, he didn't delete them, mods did because of "spamming the forum".
And mods deleted lots of post like these; (those are still there)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647246#msg10647246
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647249#msg10647249
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647298#msg10647298
I remember it, there were at least 10 posts like these.

That night he also did "unethical" things, he spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
Also you can clearly see bit-x's title says: "[++ RATES THAN DaDice]" which is quite childish (IMO).

By the way, he didn't create the bot. He hired a guy to do it (probably he has all rights).

Also he was terrible at campaign management. He had a deal with Turkish user Troleybüs, but he broke his promise and kicked out him from campaign and forced him to pay back (which wasn't part of a deal).

This seams quite personal, and why are u hiding behind obviously an alt account?
If forum staff believes these charges to be true and valid , they will react acorrdingly, im sure, and im not defending him against what you say, but
all i will say is that hes not that bad member.
He was first off banned because he wated to share his bot with other sig. campaign managers, was he not ?

cheers

I don't care if it's personal or not, I do care about the evidence. This guy (OP) has served concrete evidence which is valid.

[crazyearner]

-snip-
 He was simply pming other campaign managers about the services he has for others to make their services a lot more simpler for them to manage. Indeed it is in a way spamming because its sending pms without being asked to a way of promoting services by pm.
-snip-

I don't think his ban depends on only that reason.
As far as I see; (I've also wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10679442#msg10679442 )
Marcotheminer spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
He had an obsession about being the 100th page's first poster and keep posted same gif repeatedly.

Lot's of his messages were deleted in a few hours, What do you think you get lots of reports from same person in such a short time?

Well he did remove some of them so he could indeed be on the 100th page and the first post of it. If it was me I would of liked to do the same thing as 100 pages on a section is a milestone for some and like to have the option to make the first post on the 100th page.

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

He is  a good leader but some of the things that had been done or so mods and admins did not like.

I like others think he is a good leader. Some of the things that where done am sure he did not mean any harm other than to aler other managers of his services he has running so that other camping managers can use the bot that has been created for the campaign and he has actually done right in now creating and making a separate announcement thread than to keep on posting in other campaigns or pming. I just hope that Marc can see the light and continue the signature campaign for them as he has sure put a lot of work hours into getting it to where it is from having monthly pay to getting a bot to read up all the posts and counted sections and now making into weekly pay too with increased payments.

Nope, he didn't delete them, mods did because of "spamming the forum".
And mods deleted lots of post like these; (those are still there)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647246#msg10647246
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647249#msg10647249
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877765.msg10647298#msg10647298
I remember it, there were at least 10 posts like these.

That night he also did "unethical" things, he spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants.
Also you can clearly see bit-x's title says: "[++ RATES THAN DaDice]" which is quite childish (IMO).

By the way, he didn't create the bot. He hired a guy to do it (probably he has all rights).

Also he was terrible at campaign management. He had a deal with Turkish user Troleybüs, but he broke his promise and kicked out him from campaign and forced him to pay back (which wasn't part of a deal).

This seams quite personal, and why are u hiding behind obviously an alt account?
If forum staff believes these charges to be true and valid , they will react acorrdingly, im sure, and im not defending him against what you say, but
all i will say is that hes not that bad member.
He was first off banned because he wated to share his bot with other sig. campaign managers, was he not ?

cheers

I don't care if it's personal or not, I do care about the evidence. This guy (OP) has served concrete evidence which is valid.

Well when I seen the posts that where made by Troleybüs because he contacted me in PM saying he didn't get paid on posts and I gave reasons to as why didn't get paid as the posts that he or she made where very short posts. If their was some agreement in place for his posts to be paid on then maybe this should of been horned and even if agreements where made then proof of this should be spoke about in pm or if not delt with to then go public with proof of the post that Troleybüs was claiming should be paid on. From me as a member looking at his post they where very very short and would not qualify as quality in length post.


If a post is made and only maybe 10 words or so or even less then it would not be paid in most signature campaigns and most managers of them would agree with what am saying.  am not disagreeing on the posts that where indeed made by Troleybüs but theirs rules that each one has and me being in a lot of the signature campaigns over the last year or so he or she would of not been paid due to how short responses are in the post that Troleybüs had made. Again tho if Troleybüs marc had some arrangement and agreement in place to be paid then this should of at least been horned.

[erwin45hacked]

if that account is surely control by Marco, then marco is dishonest and doesnt honor the rules made by himself

Rules:
- This signature is the only thing permitted in the designated space and must be worn all times.
- All users who receive valid negative trust and/or are banned for spam or likewise during the course of the campaign will be denied payment.
- In case of an activity change, you will be paid at your new membership level after your payout.
- Post consistently.
- One bitcointalk account per user.

Bit-x surely choose the wrong person to manage this campaign

[Quickseller]

Well when I seen the posts that where made by Troleybüs because he contacted me in PM saying he didn't get paid on posts and I gave reasons to as why didn't get paid as the posts that he or she made where very short posts. If their was some agreement in place for his posts to be paid on then maybe this should of been horned and even if agreements where made then proof of this should be spoke about in pm or if not delt with to then go public with proof of the post that Troleybüs was claiming should be paid on. From me as a member looking at his post they where very very short and would not qualify as quality in length post.

Why did he contact you? And why/how would you give him an answer? Are you a representative of Marcotheminer and/or bit-x?

If a post is made and only maybe 10 words or so or even less then it would not be paid in most signature campaigns and most managers of them would agree with what am saying.  am not disagreeing on the posts that where indeed made by Troleybüs but theirs rules that each one has and me being in a lot of the signature campaigns over the last year or so he or she would of not been paid due to how short responses are in the post that Troleybüs had made. Again tho if Troleybüs marc had some arrangement and agreement in place to be paid then this should of at least been horned.

There is no rule regarding the min length that posts need to be in order to qualify for it to be counted. The only spam related rules that are in place are that regarding posts in specific sections, there are no rules regarding the min length that posts need to be.
Regardless, none of this matters, as the allegation of Marcotheminer evading his ban, if true is a violation of forum rules and is something that he shouldn't have done. He apparently had been banned previously for similar reasons in the past.

[crazyearner]

Well when I seen the posts that where made by Troleybüs because he contacted me in PM saying he didn't get paid on posts and I gave reasons to as why didn't get paid as the posts that he or she made where very short posts. If their was some agreement in place for his posts to be paid on then maybe this should of been horned and even if agreements where made then proof of this should be spoke about in pm or if not delt with to then go public with proof of the post that Troleybüs was claiming should be paid on. From me as a member looking at his post they where very very short and would not qualify as quality in length post.

Why did he contact you? And why/how would you give him an answer? Are you a representative of Marcotheminer and/or bit-x?

If a post is made and only maybe 10 words or so or even less then it would not be paid in most signature campaigns and most managers of them would agree with what am saying.  am not disagreeing on the posts that where indeed made by Troleybüs but theirs rules that each one has and me being in a lot of the signature campaigns over the last year or so he or she would of not been paid due to how short responses are in the post that Troleybüs had made. Again tho if Troleybüs marc had some arrangement and agreement in place to be paid then this should of at least been horned.

There is no rule regarding the min length that posts need to be in order to qualify for it to be counted. The only spam related rules that are in place are that regarding posts in specific sections, there are no rules regarding the min length that posts need to be.
Regardless, none of this matters, as the allegation of Marcotheminer evading his ban, if true is a violation of forum rules and is something that he shouldn't have done. He apparently had been banned previously for similar reasons in the past.

I am not a representative of Marcotheminer nor of bit-x. I am just a member of their signature campaign.  I just know from experience in being in them on here and other forums alike. I had seen some of the posts that Troleybüs  said about not been paid and commented on one of his responses and then he sent me a pm about it and I explained like above in more details of why wouldn't get paid out on them. I have done work like this before and also done work on other forums for paid to post forums based on level of membership that, was decided to just been paid for any old post but their was limits in place like on the signature campaigns that admins of them have in place. So I am just speaking out of experience on what will more likely to be accepted as a paid post and not. Most rules on paid to post forums or signature ones want posts above 10 to 15 words. Places where I had worked on posts where set as a min of 20 words for it being counted as a paid post to reduce quantity of posts being made and having quality posts that would be worth while and not short or spamish posts. Campaigns on here only say no spam posts or off topic.

Posts like " Hello to you too, how are you doing?"  or stuff like" Yeah ok I agree top coin count me in" Both responses are short and can easily be represented as post building, to increase your post count and then expect to be paid for it. I had to deal with over 5k to 10k members on a weekly basics going though thousands of posts and checking them. Indeed they might be on topic to what that member has posted. When it comes down to quality of posting it needs to be something that is going to be quality, useful, helpful, or a good topic that will have future posts on it from other members that will indeed gain the interest of the public viewing and also current members.

Maybe an idea for signature campaign managers should look into is actually having a min word limit on posts saying min words per response 10 to 15 etc or if under this posts will be future inspected to check to see if qualify as a quality post or not. That way it would sort a lot of problems out for many campaign managers that are running current ones. I have only seen a few people being removed from signature campaigns and most them where for posts being too short, spam, off topic, arguments, scammer, getting banned, removing signature part way though and then making some excuses up that wasn't them.

Still I do not know the full story of what happened with Troleybüs  so I can not say who is wrong who is right if Troleybüs  had indeed had some agreement or something in place than that should at least be respected .


Edited.

Well found some thread created seems that trole had some sort of transaction that was not forfilled and marc didnt payout for outstanding pay on item.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157

if that account is surely control by Marco, then marco is dishonest and doesnt honor the rules made by himself

Rules:
- This signature is the only thing permitted in the designated space and must be worn all times.
- All users who receive valid negative trust and/or are banned for spam or likewise during the course of the campaign will be denied payment.
- In case of an activity change, you will be paid at your new membership level after your payout.
- Post consistently.
- One bitcointalk account per user.

Bit-x surely choose the wrong person to manage this campaign

Well if that was true then people should be reporting back to them to put someone else in charge. However I been with it from almost the start and found to have never had any problems but seen a fair few problems that did get resolved but with any campaign theirs always going to be some sort of problems and decisions made that are not going to be liked.

[erwin45hacked]

if that account is surely control by Marco, then marco is dishonest and doesnt honor the rules made by himself

Rules:
- This signature is the only thing permitted in the designated space and must be worn all times.
- All users who receive valid negative trust and/or are banned for spam or likewise during the course of the campaign will be denied payment.
- In case of an activity change, you will be paid at your new membership level after your payout.
- Post consistently.
- One bitcointalk account per user.

Bit-x surely choose the wrong person to manage this campaign

Well if that was true then people should be reporting back to them to put someone else in charge. However I been with it from almost the start and found to have never had any problems but seen a fair few problems that did get resolved but with any campaign theirs always going to be some sort of problems and decisions made that are not going to be liked.

not saying if there is a problem about the campaign, but I think it is unwise to make a rule by yourself and you break the rule.

[tspacepilot]

Do mods post judgments in threads like this or are they just here for us to kick around our ideas in?  That is, I appreciate the discussion, but I'm curious what the authority figures around us are saying about this.

[hilariousandco]

I think he sold that account (though obviously I don't have access to other evidence). I don't think he'd be stupid enough to post from a previously known alt and on his own campaign or evade his ban risking getting himself perma banned along with all his other accounts.

[botany]

I think he sold that account (though obviously I don't have access to other evidence). I don't think he'd be stupid enough to post from a previously known alt and on his own campaign or evade his ban risking getting himself perma banned along with all his other accounts.

When a ban occurs, do the admins to do an ip check to find out alts?

[Muhammed Zakir]

I think he sold that account (though obviously I don't have access to other evidence). I don't think he'd be stupid enough to post from a previously known alt and on his own campaign or evade his ban risking getting himself perma banned along with all his other accounts.

When a ban occurs, do the admins to do an ip check to find out alts?

I think yes because staffs have told if one account is banned, all the accounts using same IP will be banned if it is doing a "ban evasion".

   -MZ

[hilariousandco]

I'm sure BadBear does or is keeping a close eye on this situation or will investigate it at least. He'll probably be able to tell if the account was sold or not or whether it looks that way (though you could easily 'fake' a sale I suppose - change the password and use tor or something).

[mishax1]

if that account is surely control by Marco, then marco is dishonest and doesnt honor the rules made by himself

Rules:
- This signature is the only thing permitted in the designated space and must be worn all times.
- All users who receive valid negative trust and/or are banned for spam or likewise during the course of the campaign will be denied payment.
- In case of an activity change, you will be paid at your new membership level after your payout.
- Post consistently.
- One bitcointalk account per user.

Bit-x surely choose the wrong person to manage this campaign

Well if that was true then people should be reporting back to them to put someone else in charge. However I been with it from almost the start and found to have never had any problems but seen a fair few problems that did get resolved but with any campaign theirs always going to be some sort of problems and decisions made that are not going to be liked.

not saying if there is a problem about the campaign, but I think it is unwise to make a rule by yourself and you break the rule.

It's pretty easy to avoid detection, i'm surprised he didn't do much to to conceal his identity.

At least he promises to pay out this campaign.

I was banned, will be active in 10 days or when I can sort it out. Weird.. 'Spam' for letting campaign managers know about a potential bot.
Meanwhile I will fight spam and report posts.
You will be paid.

[tspacepilot]

I'm sure BadBear does or is keeping a close eye on this situation or will investigate it at least. He'll probably be able to tell if the account was sold or not or whether it looks that way (though you could easily 'fake' a sale I suppose - change the password and use tor or something).

Thanks for keeping us up to date from the moderators point of view.  It will be interesting to see what badbear has to say about this whenever he has the chance to weigh-in.

[uki]

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

Same, hope this is for a legit reason, he had positive trust and everything.

Trust in this forum means NOTHING if you are allowed to trade accounts. End of story.
PS. My proposal to fix trust in the trust rating - remove all trust whenever there is evidence the account was traded, or ban trading accounts (not possible).

[Muhammed Zakir]

This account was sold by Marco to a user and he is also my friend! Now I am waiting for confirmation from him! I will keep you updated!

P.S. I am talking to Marco via IM and he is watching these threads.

   -MZ

[BadBear]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

Confirming! Me friend has confirmed it but he told me not to disclose his real account. Sorry!

   -MZ

[peligro]

Can I please get a TL;DR, I thought Marcotheminer was a good community member?

Same, hope this is for a legit reason, he had positive trust and everything.

Trust in this forum means NOTHING if you are allowed to trade accounts. End of story.
PS. My proposal to fix trust in the trust rating - remove all trust whenever there is evidence the account was traded, or ban trading accounts (not possible).

For this reason account selling should be banned. Sure, account trading will continue but the buyer now knows there will be no protection and account can be easily repossessed which should decrease trading. It will also prevent confusions like this one as sellers would be wary of their sold accounts getting banned which would ban their main accounts too.

[cakir]

This account was sold by Marco to a user and he is also my friend! Now I am waiting for confirmation from him! I will keep you updated!

P.S. I am talking to Marco via IM and he is watching these threads.

   -MZ

If you buy an account you should (actually must) post an address to proove you're the new owner of the account. At least that's what I do. But this ban evader didn't do that. Also he kept the bitcoin address on his profile Why the hell you do that?

Looks like it's been sold to me.

You should sign an address

[peligro]

This account was sold by Marco to a user and he is also my friend! Now I am waiting for confirmation from him! I will keep you updated!

P.S. I am talking to Marco via IM and he is watching these threads.

   -MZ

If you buy an account you should (actually must) post an address to proove you're the new owner of the account. At least that's what I do. But this ban evader didn't do that. Also he kept the bitcoin address on his profile Why the hell you do that?

It may be that the new owner didn't want others to notice that the account has been bought. I agree with others saying that Marco won't be foolish enough to evade a ban.

Looks like it's been sold to me.

You should sign an address

Nice catch!

 

[MarbleBoss]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

Confirming! Me friend has confirmed it but he told me not to disclose his real account. Sorry!

   -MZ

Unless 'your friend' confirmed it, we could not know his 'real account'. But, now we know

[Muhammed Zakir]

If you buy an account you should (actually must) post an address to proove you're the new owner of the account.

Why and where? There maybe reasons for not posting one.

At least that's what I do.

What you do is good but some users only post when they are forced to like when joining camapigns, giveaways, asking for loan etc...

But this ban evader didn't do that.

This isn't *must* and how is he a "ban evader" if that account is sold?

Also he kept the bitcoin address on his profile Why the hell you do that?

Not all do it. The account was sold under a certain conditions. The buyer still has to pay a some more. So the account details will stay the same untill it has been paid in full.

1) To make it less obvious of a change in ownership
2) There isn’t a huge point in changing it

   -MZ

[michaeladair]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

BadBear bought the account, Muhammed Zakir?

[Muhammed Zakir]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

BadBear bought the account, Muhammed Zakir?

That's a funny question to be honest! Nope, I don't know Badbear except I see his posts and messaged him a few times in this forum. The account was bought by my friend.

Edit: I think you misinterpreted it when you saw "to me" there. Is it right?

   -MZ

[michaeladair]

Looks like it's been sold to me.

BadBear bought the account, Muhammed Zakir?

That's a funny question to be honest! Nope, I don't know Badbear except I see his posts and messaged him a few times in this forum. The account was bought by my friend.

Edit: I think you misinterpreted it when you saw "to me" there. Is it right?

   -MZ

Yeah, really confused right now...

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

[michaeladair]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

[Muhammed Zakir]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

Just what I thought. Rephrasing: "When I checked, the account looks like sold".

   -MZ

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

[peligro]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

It was meant as a joke.

[uki]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

Resetting trust score when IP changes is a bad idea. It wouldn't be a problem if it is investigated before resetting. IP addresses can change anytime for a person.

   -MZ

[uki]

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

Resetting trust score when IP changes is a bad idea. It wouldn't be a problem if it is investigated before resetting. IP addresses can change anytime for a person.

   -MZ

Of course that the change of the IP address alone shouldn't be the reason for reset. But if there is more evidence that the account was sold that should be enforced. we may discuss what are the right criteria, e.g., different range of IP addresses and devices than in the last three months, etc.
Until such rules are enforced the trust will stay absolutely meaningless.

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

I'm confused how you could think that means he might have bought it. He has info on IPs and computers used so he can see when it's likely to have been sold by the change in details.

That is when the trust setting should be reset to zero, if the trust is supposed to mean something.

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

[uki]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

[hilariousandco]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

[bitcoin_bagholder]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

[hilariousandco]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

Haha I didn't even notice it could be read that way but it's obvious what it means.

[BadBear]

What are you confused about? Obviously BadBear didn't buy it and I don't see how you could get confused into thinking that he might have done.

Badbear said, "Looks like it's been sold to me."

The words could use some rearranging.

"Looks like it's been sold to me" becomes "To me it looks like it's been sold".

Probably. I was in a hurry and just wanted to make a quick comment.

Some funny responses though.   

[uki]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

Please, read my first post in this thread again. I also think it is unrealistic to believe that the trading of the accounts can be stopped. But, a bigger efforts can be made to put more trust into the trust ranking, and where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

[shorena]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

[crazyearner]

The trust system is a guide for you to make your own mind up on. It's not a definitive 'trust me' guarantee nor is it moderated and moderating it in the way you describe would be very very difficult and almost impossible to police.

The trust system in the current state cannot be even a guide for the reason I stated above: possiblity to trade the accounts.

Then you can choose to disregard it altogether if you so wish. Banning the sale of accounts wouldn't make any difference and all feedback systems are susceptible to various forms of abuse and accounts can always be sold or passed on to someone else. It would only make things worse if we tried (and failed) to stop account sales because it would give an even bigger false sense of security.

Please, read my first post in this thread again. I also think it is unrealistic to believe that the trading of the accounts can be stopped. But, a bigger efforts can be made to put more trust into the trust ranking, and where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

Trading accounts can be stopped it is what security measures are in place. For example if IP changes and location changes on an account it could easily be locked and then have someone contact from the original email it was made and also provide documents to provide it is  their account or give veiled reasons as to why their was an IP change. If it constantly changes to different locations then that account can simply be suspended. I have all sorts of things in place to stop this happening from exchanging accounts to people selling them. Had all the excuses given me and I simply ban. Their is no good reason as to why someone should sell an account on other than to make profit from it or to be illegal  activity or something that does not quite add up to the point of selling trading or exchanging an account.

[uki]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

Nope, because that would open another door for scammers. But I believe, you know what I meant. I am saying about the positive trust that is bought together with the accounts. So to take into account your case, instead of reset, add -50000 to trust, if there is clear evidence that the account was traded.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
where it is obvious (evidence) that the account was bought/sold, the trust should be reset accordingly.

So I could just buy a legendary account with let say -6000 trust score and get it cleaned? That would make it very easy for scammers to get a fresh start.

Nope, because that would open another door for scammers. But I believe, you know what I meant. I am saying about the positive trust that is bought together with the accounts. So to take into account your case, instead of reset add -50000 to trust, if there is evidence that the account was traded.

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

[uki]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

[Quickseller]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

Your argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that the previous owner would no longer have an incentive not to scam if their account has a large amount of positive trust if/when they are in need of money

[bitgeek]

In the above case what is the difference between buying an account with positive trust and buying trust? AFAIK the latter is not allowed.
If a transaction where an account with high positive trust (or default trust) is noticed the account should be tagged by a staff member and the account removed from default trust.

It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Yes it negates the chance of you being scammed but allows you to freely scam others, especially if you bought the account.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

People and especially scammers know how to calculate the risk. If you paid 1 BTC for the account just offer to sell something on the marketplace with no escrow for 2 BTC and send the guy a brick - pure profit.

[Quickseller]

In the above case what is the difference between buying an account with positive trust and buying trust? AFAIK the latter is not allowed.

Buying trust is receiving trust when a trade did not actually occur (e.g. a shell trade) while buying an account with positive trust is buying an account with a certain level of prestige. There is no forum rule against buying trust however most people (myself included) look down on such activity.

If a transaction where an account with high positive trust (or default trust) is noticed the account should be tagged by a staff member and the account removed from default trust.

No. This is not the job of the staff/forum administration.

It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Yes it negates the chance of you being scammed but allows you to freely scam others, especially if you bought the account.

No. Because there is still a chance that your scam attempt is called out and when this happens your initial investment of the price of the account would go down the drain

[uki]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

Your argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that the previous owner would no longer have an incentive not to scam if their account has a large amount of positive trust if/when they are in need of money

Sorry, it looks like you missed the point again. Please re-read my earlier posts again. The thesis is: the current trust rating system is not working, because it is ignoring the fact that accounts may be traded. Due to that fact, it is just a meaningless number.

[abyrnes81]

People and especially scammers know how to calculate the risk. If you paid 1 BTC for the account just offer to sell something on the marketplace with no escrow for 2 BTC and send the guy a brick - pure profit.

All the forum users know that in each trade it should be involved a valid escrow, if someone don't use it then it is his personal choice ; if it will turn in a scam then he should not cry.

There are a lot of valid escrow users, most of them are free fees so why not use them?

[Quickseller]

There is positive value to having an account with positive trust that does not have to do with scamming. For example, with positive trust you generally will not need to pay any escrow fees, which can add up if you trade a lot. It negates the chances of either an escrow service scamming you or your trading partner scamming you because you generally can ask your trading partner to send money first to you.

Additionally if having positive trust were to create additional value to an account (it will as long as you can sell the account and it still has positive trust) then the owner has an incentive not to scam, as if they are caught trying to scam then they will lose the additional value their account has. If positive trust were to disappear when ownership of an account transfers then the owner of an account with a lot of positive trust may elect to attempt to scam someone instead of selling their account as the expected payoff may be higher.

I think you missed my point.
Once it is sold for a good price, because of the status and positive trust, the account with unchanged value of trust may be, potentially, used for scamming (if executed properly, the scammer gets away with the chunky return and he/she doesn't care what happens with that account afterwards). That is what the whole discussion here is about.

They would also have to risk their initial investment in order to pull off such scam. It is also not a guarantee that such a scam will be successful and if it is not then you will have lost 100% (or close to such amount) of your investment as your positive trust account will now have negative trust.

Your argument also fails to take into consideration the fact that the previous owner would no longer have an incentive not to scam if their account has a large amount of positive trust if/when they are in need of money

Sorry, it looks like you missed the point again. Please re-read my earlier posts again. The thesis is: the current trust rating system is not working, because it is ignoring the fact that accounts may be traded. Due to that fact, it is just a meaningless number.

No, I understand your point, but it is invalid.

[Bizmark13]

Maybe an idea for signature campaign managers should look into is actually having a min word limit on posts saying min words per response 10 to 15 etc or if under this posts will be future inspected to check to see if qualify as a quality post or not. That way it would sort a lot of problems out for many campaign managers that are running current ones. I have only seen a few people being removed from signature campaigns and most them where for posts being too short, spam, off topic, arguments, scammer, getting banned, removing signature part way though and then making some excuses up that wasn't them.

This idea is already being implemented by Bitmixer.io although it measures characters rather than words (the limit being 75 characters).

Trading accounts can be stopped it is what security measures are in place. For example if IP changes and location changes on an account it could easily be locked and then have someone contact from the original email it was made and also provide documents to provide it is  their account or give veiled reasons as to why their was an IP change. If it constantly changes to different locations then that account can simply be suspended. I have all sorts of things in place to stop this happening from exchanging accounts to people selling them. Had all the excuses given me and I simply ban. Their is no good reason as to why someone should sell an account on other than to make profit from it or to be illegal  activity or something that does not quite add up to the point of selling trading or exchanging an account.

IMHO this doesn't sound like a good idea at all, and I might even go so far as to say that it goes against the spirit of Bitcoin. Many people here are reluctant to give out their phone number let alone documents proving identity, address, etc. In the past year, I changed my location 3 times and my IP address 4 times (I'm a student). Multiply that by the thousands of members here and it would quickly become infeasible.

[Berau]

Was marco taken off the default trust list because of that?

I see that BadBear has left a feedback stating that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts", and the reference link goes to the yussuf guy's thread. I don't think there's enough evidence that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts" just because that he dealt with a stolen/hacked account as a collateral for a loan.

If someone can prove that valueaccounts is an alt of marco and what he's selling is hacked/stolen accounts though, I'll probably change my opinion about this. But for now marco seems legit enough and paying out the bit-x campaign earnings.

[hilariousandco]

I don't think he was on default trust. And he might not purposely or knowingly deal with stolen/trafficked accounts but that's what unfortunately happened in that situation and will likely happen if you don't get proof of ownership via a signed message before you accept the account.

[Quickseller]

Was marco taken off the default trust list because of that?

marco was never on default trust. He has asked to be on it though

I see that BadBear has left a feedback stating that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts", and the reference link goes to the yussuf guy's thread. I don't think there's enough evidence that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts" just because that he dealt with a stolen/hacked account as a collateral for a loan.

This is because marco refused to give the account back even though he did not get a signed message proving ownership when he took it as collateral and there is evidence that it was/is hacked.

If someone can prove that valueaccounts is an alt of marco and what he's selling is hacked/stolen accounts though, I'll probably change my opinion about this. But for now marco seems legit enough and paying out the bit-x campaign earnings.

valueaccounts is an alt of marco. The yussuf incident was the second time that he was in possession of a stolen account.

[Berau]

Was marco taken off the default trust list because of that?

marco was never on default trust. He has asked to be on it though

I see that BadBear has left a feedback stating that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts", and the reference link goes to the yussuf guy's thread. I don't think there's enough evidence that marco "Traffics in stolen accounts" just because that he dealt with a stolen/hacked account as a collateral for a loan.

This is because marco refused to give the account back even though he did not get a signed message proving ownership when he took it as collateral and there is evidence that it was/is hacked.

If someone can prove that valueaccounts is an alt of marco and what he's selling is hacked/stolen accounts though, I'll probably change my opinion about this. But for now marco seems legit enough and paying out the bit-x campaign earnings.

valueaccounts is an alt of marco. The yussuf incident was the second time that he was in possession of a stolen account.

Hmm.. I get most of what you were saying, although when I'm viewing the default trust list, it comes up as something like this:

marcotheminer (-1)

[hilariousandco]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

[Quickseller]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

he is excluded by badbear

[Berau]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

But quickseller said that he was never on the default list.

I figured that if he's on that list at all, he probably have been on that list at least for a few hours.

[hilariousandco]

He wasn't as far as I know but you can still exclude people who you don't trust. I think it's a pre-emptive measure more than anything.

[TotalShift]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

Who has the power to exclude users? If a user is excluded, the trust he gets from trusted users will be nulled and void?

[Berau]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

Who has the power to exclude users? If a user is excluded, the trust he gets from trusted users will be nulled and void?

Obviously administrators have the power to do so.

He wasn't as far as I know but you can still exclude people who you don't trust. I think it's a pre-emptive measure more than anything.

So the exclusion is basically based on BadBear's opinion?

[Quickseller]

That means he's been excluded by someone.

Who has the power to exclude users? If a user is excluded, the trust he gets from trusted users will be nulled and void?

No. People on "level one" of default trust (e.g. who are trusted by default trust) have the most "power" to exclude people from ever being on default trust (in general).

If more people exclude someone then include them who are trusted by default trust then any trust that is left by that person is going to be, by default, untrusted .

[hilariousandco]

Everyone can exclude people and you then wont see their trust ratings and the people they trust though I think you have to be on Default for your exclusions to exclude or negatively effect others or their feedback then carries less weight. I believe your ratings can still count if you've been excluded but you need more people to add you to their trust lists for that to happen.

[abyrnes81]

You can Untrust an user , you have only to put "~" before his username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). For example :

~abyrnes81

[Berau]

You can Untrust an user , you have only to put "~" before his username (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). For example :

~abyrnes81

Thanks for the example, never knew you could do that before.

[BadBear]

I excluded him because someone in my trust list has him on their trust list. To everyone else he would have been level 3, thus not in the default trust network at the default depth of 2. Being directly in default trust itself meant he was at level 2 for me, and I found his ratings to be inaccurate. And yes that's just my opinion, and it's my trust list.

Anyone can exclude someone. Someone who is in default trust is not in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him. Exclusions are more effective the higher up you are in someone's trust list/default trust.

[Berau]

I excluded him because someone in my trust list has him on their trust list. To everyone else he would have been level 3, thus not in the default trust network at the default depth of 2. Being directly in default trust itself meant he was at level 2 for me, and I found his ratings to be inaccurate. And yes that's just my opinion, and it's my trust list.

Anyone can exclude someone. Someone who is in default trust is not in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him. Exclusions are more effective the higher up you are in someone's trust list/default trust.

I don't really get it. Are you saying that if I was in the default list, if I excludes someone, it'll have an impact on anyone else's view as well?

[BadBear]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=851380.0

[tspacepilot]

I excluded him because someone in my trust list has him on their trust list. To everyone else he would have been level 3, thus not in the default trust network at the default depth of 2. Being directly in default trust itself meant he was at level 2 for me, and I found his ratings to be inaccurate. And yes that's just my opinion, and it's my trust list.

Anyone can exclude someone. Someone who is in default trust is not in my trust network due to people in my trust list excluding him. Exclusions are more effective the higher up you are in someone's trust list/default trust.

Thanks BadBear and others, I never knew how to deal with the situation where someone I trusted has trusted someone that I don't trust.  Now I know that I can exclude that person with "~".  Wonderful.