Topic: #2880133 “Slbtc” (Read 213 times)

That's a good point, but I also look at it this way. If someone has enough btc to pay me upfront for an item and share me their shipping details, and has a decent rep in collectibles or is anewbie who is actually trying to learn/get ahead, (without any shenanigans or feelings of unease), and I deliver and they are happy, I see that as fairly trustworthy, as ofc I have no reason to get scammed, nor would I scam anyone as most people who really know me know. To be fair/honest, sometimes I never leave trust in this scenario, and sometimes I do if it's a high-value item or something "different", so I don't think I've ever enabled any scammery in this manner .... I will think more about this as well.

As for the second scenario, yes, it indeed does prove trustworthiness, and I usually put trust on those deals ahead of the former. However, I have not been part of many deals where half is first/half later for some strange reason.

Edit - Either way, I think a lot / very carefully before adding positive trust. In fact I sold Rainbowsky a coin thinking he was a newbie just trying to learn. He had me send  a bunch of pics of coins I now know he could never/would afford, then just bought only one cheapo for like 80 bucks. There was no way I would leave trust for a trade of that value like that, and I actually figured out it was Alamjob since he had sent me something once in a raffle or something small, and I just happened to recognize his name/location as being the same as alamjobs. ... That's how I figured this all out. In fact, I gave Rainbowsky a merit once, thinking he was just a newbie trying to work his way up, since I thought his post was actually good/true.... Little did I know he was just "behaving" and acting "normal" at that time before being "outed" again ....

Shouldn't it be the other way around? If someone pays me first then they wouldn't have a chance to scam so I can't judge their trustworthiness. However if I pay first and they deliver (or I deliver first and they pay later) while having a chance of scamming me - that proves trustworthiness, at least up to the value of the deal / risked amount.

Very well said, I am the same way. I will not give positive trust for deals under a certain amount of BTC/$, such as Mr. Nasty who gave Rainbowsky +trust over (maybe?) 30 bucks worth of physical coin(s) he won in some raffle.

Personally as for "deals", I never give positive trust unless 1, 2, or 3 (or combination thereof) occur:

1.  They pay me first without any escrow, with at least a trade value of 500 USD worth of BTC (Typically for something I am selling or auctioning).
2.  I receive the item in perfect standing, with no issues.

OR:

1. I buy or sell a good, and escrow is used, and both parties are satisfied.

OR:

People such as yourself who are critical thinkers, and Lauda who leaves excellent feedback - This would include well known and respect anti-scammers like suchmoon, lovesmyfamlis, coolcryptovator, etc etc...

I highly value opinions or ratings of other users like them, even if I have never traded a satoshi.


Having known Lauda over a period of time, I realized they were just a bit trigger-happy at first, but they always went back and revised and removed any errors. They just erred on the side of caution, which I don't think is a bad thing. I have done this myself admittedly, sometimes not having enough time to maintain my own list.

However, I'd just like to state for the record, I never trusted Lauda as a person, just their ratings. That's the only reason they still exist in my trustlist, and having taken heat from even Theymos about it, I still don't care, everycon can fuck off there lol 😂

---

As for Rainbowsky, check it, he's up to more shenanigans - Selling the same item in two different places, and keeps deleting the evidence (The last post lol).

https://archive.is/Z34U2

Cheers

Thanks.  Credit re Rainbowsky goes to owlcatz for calling out Rainbowsky to begin with, to 1miau for inferring the probable connection with “Slbtc”, and to owlcatz for bringing it up here.

I only got into this because the user started a troll topic in Meta, which staff have since wholly trashed (Loyce’s archive); and upon further investigation, I found that either it is a scammer, or it is a troll trolling with troll-scam threads that could actually cause somebody to lose money (e.g., the advocacy of Martingale gambling as an “investment”).

---

On Trusting Trust Feedback

Quote from: TalkStar on November 16, 2020, 11:50:50 AM

Most unexpected thing is that still people exist who don't think twice before giving positive feedback to someone like "Rainbowsky" just after a single trade or transaction. I am clearly seeing +1 green trust on his profile where multiple red tags are dazzling on the other side. After having this update its pretty much clear to us that we will see more connected accounts which are controlling by the same person.

That is a major concern of mine.  Many users complain about negative trust, but not enough people are complaining about the careless sending of positive trust feedback!  It is certainly good cause to ~exclude.  If/when I take the time to suss out who is bringing cheap positive feedbacks into my trust network (probably on level 2), I will ~exclude them all; I already see very few of them, due to my careful selection of my inclusions list and the many exclusions that I already make.

Scammers know that they can pull a mini “long con” with just a few little trades.  Another common scammer tactic is to build trust at negligible cost and effort by taking, then repaying small loans.  In the local boards, positive trust is also often given for translations (oft even low-quality translations, though that is not the real issue).

Quote from: nullius on February 23, 2018, 09:29:06 PM

I am extremely conservative in matters of trust.  I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly.  If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight.  It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world.  Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.

Quote from: nullius on March 08, 2018, 02:15:12 PM

I am ultraconservative in matters of trust;

Quote from: nullius on February 07, 2018, 02:39:20 PM

... “trust is hard to earn, easy to lose”. ...

There are certain empirical facts about trust known by experience to anyone over the age of thirty.

Quote from: nullius on January 28, 2020, 03:13:24 PM

I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.

A good post in the Russian forum (needs merit when I catch up with some other issue):

Quote from: johhnyUA on November 08, 2020, 05:54:14 PM

Зeлeный - цвeт бeзoпacтнocти, cпoкoйcтвия, yвepeннocти. Дaжe нa cвeтoфopax cигнaл дaющий дopoгy и пoкaзывaющий пeшexoдaм чтo ceйчac иx вpeмя - зeлeный. Ha мнoгиx фopyмax cвязaнныx c финaнcoвыми дeлaми или тopгoвлeй зeлeный этo тoжe пpизнaк нaдeжнoгo тopгoвцa. Пoэтoмy вce paвнo, нeкoтopыe люди бyдyт вocпpинимaть зeлeныe oтзывы кaк вecoмый apгyмeнт пpи cдeлкe.

И oпять тaки, нeгoдяи oчeнь чacтo пытaютcя этим вocпoльзoвaтьcя. Oни нe глyпыe в этoм плaнe пo кpaйнeй мepe. Oни кaк paз иcпoльзyют peптильныe кaчecтвa (cлoжный peчeвoй oбopoт, xe xe) кaк тo yмeниe мaнипyлиpoвaть для тaкoгo. И жepтвы кaк мы видим нaxoдятcя.

I also know that Lauda was aghast at how cheaply some people give positive trust feedback.

Most unexpected thing is that still people exist who don't think twice before giving positive feedback to someone like "Rainbowsky" just after a single trade or transaction. I am clearly seeing +1 green trust on his profile where multiple red tags are dazzling on the other side. After having this update its pretty much clear to us that we will see more connected accounts which are controlling by the same person.

I have supported both flags and connected accounts will be tagged shortly. Thanks for spending your time to detect all these connected accounts.

The style seems similar.  I have added 1miau’s list of potential alts to Post #2 here, and may update OP if this can be confirmed.

Thanks for the tip.

Hmm... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55599307

Any thoughts? 

Additional information via owlcatz:  Probable connection to other accounts.  (I may update OP with this after I have time to read through the thread against Rainbowsky, and/or if the connection is clearly confirmed.)  Rainbowsky (trust page) has active Flag #2406.

Flag #2465 on #2880133 “Slbtc” (trust page)

---

Due to these concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money:

• Requests large, no-collateral loans—in a self-moderated topic.
• Advises a basic Martingale gambling strategy as a great way to “invest”.
• Brags that (well-deserved) negative trust feedback makes you “more popular in the forum”, and thus “is quite good thing”.

See also additional notes.

---

Concrete red flag 1:  Requests large, no-collateral loans—in a self-moderated topic.

Loyce’s Topic Archive

This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (1 post by 1 user deleted.)
"Last edit: Today [2020-11-15] at 10:48:43 AM by Slbtc"

Despite the “1 post deleted” note, there seem to be currently two criticisms deleted (plus Slbtc seems to have deleted some of his own posts):

• Post 55596910 (by Pmalek)
• Post 55597669 (by condoras)

---

Concrete red flag 2:  Advises a basic Martingale gambling strategy as a great way to “invest”—in a self-moderated thread, where it can be presumed he will delete any posts that try to bring maths into the discussion.

Loyce’s Topic Archive

Economy / Investor-based games / Fast BTC Grab - Invest In Dice - Then Withdraw Profit 0.2 - 0.4 BTC
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.

---

Concrete red flag 3:  Brags that (well-deserved) negative trust feedback makes you “more popular in the forum”, and thus “is quite good thing”.

---

Additional notes:  This user created a trolling topic in Meta, and leaves idiotic false trust feedback.

Although I do not propose that such things in themselves should constitute “concrete red flags” within the scope of the flag system, it is additional evidence that should be weighed together with the foregoing, in judging a “high risk of losing money”.