Marcotheminer the Ban Evader

[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?

[1715664028]

1715664028

[1715664028]

1715664028

[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