Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2019, 10:56:50 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CanaryInTheMine is further abusing the trust system [Fixed]  (Read 4284 times)
Finksy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 16, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
 #41

An Israeli classic. The meaning is clear I believe, even if you don't understand Hebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-9ahtQuY1E&app=desktop

Almost spot-on, except in that case the kid knew well enough to walk away with his head hung low.

If only...

IBM 2880W PSU Packages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966135 IBM 4K PSU Breakout Boards & Packages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1308296 
Server PSU-powered GPU rig solutions! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864539  Wallet address: 1GWQYCv22cAikgTgT1zFuAmsJ9fFqq9TXf 
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1556189810
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556189810

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556189810
Reply with quote  #2

1556189810
Report to moderator
Guy Corem
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1029


Spondoolies, Beam & DAGlabs


View Profile WWW
March 16, 2015, 07:16:48 PM
 #42

An Israeli classic. The meaning is clear I believe, even if you don't understand Hebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-9ahtQuY1E&app=desktop

Almost spot-on, except in that case the kid knew well enough to walk away with his head hung low.

If only...
Hebrew slang you should look up: "Yeled Kafot"

New Mimblewimble implementation: https://www.beam.mw
Spondoolies is back with the SPx36: https://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/spx36
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1078


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 11:48:47 AM
 #43

Canary has now left me negative trust with the below message, yet he refuses to reveal why he distrusts me. Users in Level 1 or even Level 2 trust are absolutely accountable for their trust ratings, which Canary refuses to be.

Quote
I absolutely do not trust dogie. No personal btc were risked, I simply do not trust him whatsoever.

Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 504


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 12:11:25 PM
 #44

Canary has now left me negative trust with the below message, yet he refuses to reveal why he distrusts me. Users in Level 1 or even Level 2 trust are absolutely accountable for their trust ratings, which Canary refuses to be.

Quote
I absolutely do not trust dogie. No personal btc were risked, I simply do not trust him whatsoever.

I think he accepted SaltySpitoon's suggestion/opinion. Now he removed you from his trust list and others who trust you can find your trust feedback in "Trusted feesback".

By the way, FYI:

If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

Although there is an option, many of them won't use it or don't know about it.

P.S. IMHO what CITM did is better, leaving a negative trust than excluding you.

dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1078


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 12:15:55 PM
 #45

Canary has now left me negative trust with the below message, yet he refuses to reveal why he distrusts me. Users in Level 1 or even Level 2 trust are absolutely accountable for their trust ratings, which Canary refuses to be.

Quote
I absolutely do not trust dogie. No personal btc were risked, I simply do not trust him whatsoever.

I think he accepted SaltySpitoon's suggestion/opinion. Now he removed you from his trust list and others who trust you can find your trust feedback in "Trusted feesback".

It doesn't change anything here, he has a history of abusing his Depth 1 position and is not trustworthy enough to hold it. Not only has he spam added 100s of members to Depth 2 for his own personal gain, he also magically becomes 'distrustful' of anyone who calls him out on it.

His negative trust is also enough to prevent me from affecting anyone else's ratings which is as good as an exclusion.

Finksy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
 #46



I guess you didn't read my post earlier about the mirror.  Instead of looking at everyone else around here, you should start looking at yourself.  When you rub people the wrong way with your holier-than-thou attitude, it's going to have ramifications.

IBM 2880W PSU Packages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966135 IBM 4K PSU Breakout Boards & Packages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1308296 
Server PSU-powered GPU rig solutions! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864539  Wallet address: 1GWQYCv22cAikgTgT1zFuAmsJ9fFqq9TXf 
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 1270


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
 #47



I guess you didn't read my post earlier about the mirror.  Instead of looking at everyone else around here, you should start looking at yourself.  When you rub people the wrong way with your holier-than-thou attitude, it's going to have ramifications.

Oh so there are no rules? Just a popularity contest? Who is this thread about anyway?  Dogie, or CITM? 
If only the legal system worked that way, wouldn't it be great? All the "annoying" people would be in prison, and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump would run everything. This is what happens anyone stands up to abuse around here from those in authority. It becomes a popularity contest and suddenly rules don't count and everyone attacks the messenger. Funny how it works the exact opposite way for everyone else. I guess that is what it is like to have no rule of law.

I agree CITM has repeatedly demonstrated not only his willingness to abuse the default trust system for personal gain, but furthermore does not even take the time to trim abusers from his massive over sized, self serving, trusted list. If Canaryinthemine is abusing the default trust system, and there are no official rules posed about using the default trust system, all that is happening is CITM is serving as an example of how NOT TO act when on the default trust that others will likely repeat and have repercussions for themselves, because hey, if Canaryinthemine can do it, it must be ok!

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
nubbins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 03:44:58 PM
 #48



^ this thread.


YA KNOW, GUYS, if you just removed the default trust list altogether and started using the forum's trust system like the OTC Web of Trust (or even better, if you grew up and learned PGP like the rest of the adults), this would be a non-issue.

The *only* bit missing is the PGP tie-in. That's it. It boggles me that there's a superior system being used in the bitcoin world right now that can be almost completely mapped to this bogus forum trust setup, and nobody knows/cares.

"New users get the wrong impression of who is trustworthy."
So get rid of the entire Default Trust list.

"But then new users won't know WHO to trust."
Fuck them. They need to learn.

"But then I'll lose my fancy green rating text"
Fuck you. Who cares.

"But people will have to do research in order to determine whether they trust someone or not."
Imagine.

To further drive home the point that every single goddamn one of you who is not present in the OTC Web of Trust is doing this entire trust thing perfectly wrong, I'll paraphrase from the Romanian whom everyone loves to hate.

Quote
I. The Web of Trust is not, as the name would seem to imply, an oilfield in which trust plays the role of oil, and you deploy some apparatuses and other devices to extract the trust therewith.

Trust is not in the web, that or any other web. Trust is not in the wording, not on the paper, not in the symbols, or certificates, or seals. Trust is not in others and other things, but much like faith - for which it serves as a ready synonym - trust is within oneself.

The Web of Trust is merely the infrastructure upon which trust is built, by you, for your own use, within yourself. The same objective set of relations can result in drastically different trust in the eyes of drastically different third parties. The point of the WoT is not to make these judgements for you.

II. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem.

It allows the user - any user - to confidently identify the sources of information, both in the negative and in the positive. That is to say, if sources of information exist, the user may by the WoT find them, and safely assume that should no sources of information be thus found, no sources of information in fact exist. It further allows the user to judge the quality, reliability and precision of said sources, and this independent both of the direct source and of the counterparty he's examining.

III. How to use it. Let's understand what all this means with a simple example. Consider the village of Wotania, wherein there exist exactly 100 agents, all participating in the Wotania WoT, and wherein strong currency is used for all transactions. Suppose Joe wants to buy a used car from Moe. While the currency he'd be paying Moe in is strong, the car he's buying is anything but, and so Joe would like to evaluate Moe before paying him. What's he to do ?

First off, he should evaluate Moe's relevancy. Obviously since there are 100 agents in total, the highest score any one agent could achieve in the WoT would be 990. This would reflect the situation where one particular citizen was considered as perfectly known by all other citizens. Thus if Moe has accumulated a score of 33, this clearly shows that at least 4 of the agents know him, which roughly means one in 25. If Joe knows 80 agents personally, but none of the agents he knows rated Moe, this makes Moe suspect on the first pass.

Sure, it's possible that Moe is only known to the minority subgroup of 20 agents doing things with cars, and within that subgroup he's quite well known, whereas Joe is strictly a part of the Wotania web industry, and they walk everywhere. However, this is something that Joe can evaluate by himself, without having any need for Moe, and without needing to ask him anything. For instance, if the island has a total of 3 car manufacturers, and all of them are in Joe's 80, Moe's position suddenly became untenable. Sure, it's possible that used car salesmen are completely separated from car manufacturers in the manner car people are separated from web people. But it seems less likely (and the likeliness of it is, again, fully within Joe's estimative hands).

Leaving that aside, if the average rating in Joe's WoT is 3.14, whereas Moe has received his 33 trust from exactly 4 people, averaging thus 8.25, there's suddenly exposed a very strange divergence between the two groups. Sure, it is legitimately possible for Moe's subgroup to be much more tightly knit, and thus his friends much more familiar with him than is the case in Joe's group. This happens, but not without other consequences, which again add valuable information into the credibility equation.

Or suppose instead that Moe's rating of 33 was provided by 10 people, yet still none of them are in Joe's reach. Somehow it is possible that out of 10 different people, 10% of the population of Wotania, nobody had any dealings with the 80 people Joe knows. They live on the same island, they go about their daily business, yet no one's ever met. Possible, especially if one lives in the US, but also improbable, and in this improbability, informative. Because this is the point of the WoT : its factual information reduces to a pile of factually correct statements, which all work as probabilities, and it's trivial to calculate the likeliness of a fact that depends on a number of other facts with known likelinesses : you just need multiply. 0.2 here, 0.5 there, 0.66 and another 0.15 suddenly you're at 0.8% which may well be under your risk tolerance threshold.

But let's say that out of Moe's 10 raters, 3 are in Joe's WoT. One supplied 3 points, the others one point each. Joe directs his questions as to Moe to each of them :

Quote
Dear Sue, Hue, Lue :

I am considering buying a used car from Moe.

I see that you have rated him in the past. How did that go ?

To which the three are held to answer (and the treatment for non-answering is again an informative variable, whose treatment rests with Joe) in the canonical form :

Quote
Hi Joe!

I bought a pair of shocks from him April last. They were broken, but he refunded my payment without much hassle.

All the best, Sue.

or

Quote
Hi Joe!

I bought a car stereo from him. It had a big scratch on the side and some other misc damage, but he let it go real cheap.

All the best, Hue.

At this point, Joe knows, but quite exactly, what the story with Moe is : he's a small time car thief, and he's trying to make ends meet by selling whatever car parts he can get his hands on. Simple, really.

Alternatively, of course, he could be a very reputable used cars salesman. 0.8%, or as the clueless say, “it’s impossible to call it one way or the other”.

The important parts here are the easiest to overlook :

i. All this was established with no input required from Moe. Sure, if you want to get fancy you could easily ask a few choice questions just to see how the guy answers. But at its core, simplest, most barebone functionality, the WoT does not require you to talk to your subject of interest, at all.

ii. The process works universally : If it worked you know it worked, and of what quality its results are. If it failed you know it failed, and why and how come. It has, in other words, exactly the opposite properties to those decried by Naggum in his Lisp advocacy misadventures piece.

iii. Especially considering the alternatives, this is mindbogglingly cheap. In fact, I am ready to argue that the savings this model brings are, both in aggregate and on a percent basis, more significant than the savings Bitcoin brings in payments, or provably-fair in gambling.

So why isn't it used more often ? Because people are stupid.

No longer buying/selling Casascius coins. Beware scammers.
My OTC Web of Trust ratings / What's a PGP chain of custody?
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:52:52 PM
 #49


To further drive home the point that every single goddamn one of you who is not present in the OTC Web of Trust is doing this entire trust thing perfectly wrong, I'll paraphrase from the Romanian whom everyone loves to hate.

Quote
I. The Web of Trust is not, as the name would seem to imply, an oilfield in which trust plays the role of oil, and you deploy some apparatuses and other devices to extract the trust therewith.

Trust is not in the web, that or any other web. Trust is not in the wording, not on the paper, not in the symbols, or certificates, or seals. Trust is not in others and other things, but much like faith - for which it serves as a ready synonym - trust is within oneself.

The Web of Trust is merely the infrastructure upon which trust is built, by you, for your own use, within yourself. The same objective set of relations can result in drastically different trust in the eyes of drastically different third parties. The point of the WoT is not to make these judgements for you.

II. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem.


So why isn't it used more often ? Because people are stupid.


Speaking of the Web of Trust.
Were almost at the one Year anniversary of Mirceas Perma Ban, since she will never apologize maybe it's about time for an unban lol.
That said I think a WOT system would be an interesting trial over default trust, but just my 2 cents, that said we did have a long debate on how to get the damn thing to work already, remembers Theymos meta thread with the major change being neutral trust.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52741;sa=showPosts

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1020



View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:56:20 PM
 #50


To further drive home the point that every single goddamn one of you who is not present in the OTC Web of Trust is doing this entire trust thing perfectly wrong, I'll paraphrase from the Romanian whom everyone loves to hate.

Quote
I. The Web of Trust is not, as the name would seem to imply, an oilfield in which trust plays the role of oil, and you deploy some apparatuses and other devices to extract the trust therewith.

Trust is not in the web, that or any other web. Trust is not in the wording, not on the paper, not in the symbols, or certificates, or seals. Trust is not in others and other things, but much like faith - for which it serves as a ready synonym - trust is within oneself.

The Web of Trust is merely the infrastructure upon which trust is built, by you, for your own use, within yourself. The same objective set of relations can result in drastically different trust in the eyes of drastically different third parties. The point of the WoT is not to make these judgements for you.

II. The WoT works by reducing the unknowns problem.


So why isn't it used more often ? Because people are stupid.


Speaking of the Web of Trust.
Were almost at the one Year anniversary of Mirceas Perma Ban, since she will never apologize maybe it's about time for an unban lol.
That said I think a WOT system would be an interesting trial over default trust, but just my 2 cents, although we did have a long debate on how to get the damn thing to work already, remembers Theymos meta thread with the major change being neutral trust.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=52741;sa=showPosts



Wasn't permabanned. 45 days.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Tomatocage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1178

brb keeping up with the Kardashians


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:58:35 PM
 #51

Canary, I like you, man. You're OG and you've always been cool with me (well, my main account anyway). But taking a look at your Trust list raises some eyebrows. Leaving a positive rating for someone you've traded with is fine -- I do it myself sometimes. However, it appears that you're actually adding these people to your Trust list, which is completely separate than your Trust ratings. I'm not sure if were aware of that dichotomy, as the Trust system itself is fairly confusing, and I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of the difference until several months after the Trust system went live.

Here's one branch of your Trust list that might need a 2nd look:

CanaryInTheMine -> Trynmpo -> PlusLegit

The latter two have been decisively outed as scammers:

Trynmpo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=925125.0
PlusLegit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576101.0 (as well as a bevy of other scam accusation threads)

IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust. I usually ask myself, "Could I confidently send 500 BTC to this user and trust that they'd send it back without hesitation?" If the answer to that is, "yes," then they're a candidate for my own Trust list (Depth 1 I guess).

Regards,
TC

Recommended Exchanges: Binance.com | Altcoin.io
GPG ID: 4880D85C | 1% Escrow | 8% IPO/ICO Escrow services Temporarily Closed | Bitcointalk is the ONLY place where I use this name (No Skype/IRC/YIM/AIM/etc) | 13CsmTqGNwvFXb7tD9yFvJcEYCDTB8wQTS | Beware of these SCAM sites! | *Sponsored Link
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:58:46 PM
 #52


Were almost at the one Year anniversary of Mirceas Perma Ban, since she will never apologize maybe it's about time for an unban lol.


Wasn't permabanned. 45 days.

I thought it was a permaban sorry about that in that case MP hasn't posted in a year then
Thanks for the clarification BB
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1093



View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
 #53

The default trust system is not really that bad here. I think that with the right Depth 1 users and well maintained lists it works alright. I would love to see a more #bitcoin-otc setup with scores from -10 - +10 in the future. We need a forum version of gribble ASAP! CITM's list is silly and has been pointed out a bunch of times. I agree he should probably remove about 90% of those guys and start fresh.

CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1005


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:30:58 PM
 #54

Neither one is on my list... am I looking at the wrong thing here??

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...). will post in Meta later.

Canary, I like you, man. You're OG and you've always been cool with me (well, my main account anyway). But taking a look at your Trust list raises some eyebrows. Leaving a positive rating for someone you've traded with is fine -- I do it myself sometimes. However, it appears that you're actually adding these people to your Trust list, which is completely separate than your Trust ratings. I'm not sure if were aware of that dichotomy, as the Trust system itself is fairly confusing, and I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of the difference until several months after the Trust system went live.

Here's one branch of your Trust list that might need a 2nd look:

CanaryInTheMine -> Trynmpo -> PlusLegit

The latter two have been decisively outed as scammers:

Trynmpo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=925125.0
PlusLegit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576101.0 (as well as a bevy of other scam accusation threads)

IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust. I usually ask myself, "Could I confidently send 500 BTC to this user and trust that they'd send it back without hesitation?" If the answer to that is, "yes," then they're a candidate for my own Trust list (Depth 1 I guess).

Regards,
TC

dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1078


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 07:39:29 PM
 #55

Canary ... IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust.

CITM's list is silly and has been pointed out a bunch of times. I agree he should probably remove about 90% of those guys and start fresh.

Which begs the question, why was he ever in Depth 1 to begin with? In this post I went through the list of other Depth 1 users, and its pretty easy to see why they're in the list.

2x site admins
4x staff
4x escrows + account markers
2x oldtime securities / gambling agents

1x trader [Phil]
1x Canary

The first 12 are clearly good candidates to Depth 1, Phil and then Canary..... Not only does he not operate a sensible trust network, he actively abuses it to improve his own standing. Why? So he can sell more items for profit. Not only that, he then aggressively uses that power to attack anyone that speaks about this abuse.


I plan to expand default trust list

I think you've done enough expanding, you've added more accounts than everyone else combined and the vast majority of those are inappropriate.

Tomatocage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1178

brb keeping up with the Kardashians


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:14:25 PM
 #56

Neither one is on my list... am I looking at the wrong thing here??

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...). will post in Meta later.

Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I still don't know how to figure out who is on whose Trust list.

Recommended Exchanges: Binance.com | Altcoin.io
GPG ID: 4880D85C | 1% Escrow | 8% IPO/ICO Escrow services Temporarily Closed | Bitcointalk is the ONLY place where I use this name (No Skype/IRC/YIM/AIM/etc) | 13CsmTqGNwvFXb7tD9yFvJcEYCDTB8wQTS | Beware of these SCAM sites! | *Sponsored Link
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1637


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
 #57

Neither one is on my list... am I looking at the wrong thing here??

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...). will post in Meta later.

Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I still don't know how to figure out who is on whose Trust list.

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Tomatocage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1178

brb keeping up with the Kardashians


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:27:33 PM
 #58

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

Thank you. I totally missed that link Smiley

Edit: It just comes up as a blank white page for me.

Recommended Exchanges: Binance.com | Altcoin.io
GPG ID: 4880D85C | 1% Escrow | 8% IPO/ICO Escrow services Temporarily Closed | Bitcointalk is the ONLY place where I use this name (No Skype/IRC/YIM/AIM/etc) | 13CsmTqGNwvFXb7tD9yFvJcEYCDTB8wQTS | Beware of these SCAM sites! | *Sponsored Link
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3374
Merit: 5327


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:30:08 PM
 #59

Thank you. I totally missed that link Smiley

Edit: It just comes up as a blank white page for me.

Your high depth causes the page to time out. You'll have to temporarily reduce that.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1005


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:32:18 PM
 #60

Neither one is on my list... am I looking at the wrong thing here??

I plan to expand default trust list with members having some responsibilities (i.e. identify abuses or scams etc...). will post in Meta later.

Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I still don't know how to figure out who is on whose Trust list.

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full
i checked both views, neither one of them is there...
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!