Topic: BFL bringing down the trust rating? - page 6. (Read 11089 times)
this sort of behaviour just tells what type of people are running the bfl organisation. im so glad to be one of the very few who got the refund from paypal management office on time. though the $500 upgrade was never returned after multiple requests.
I just will try voice my disagreements. If I accidentally will win the monarch, it will be a nice bonus.
I don't see why people whine so much about the trust system, really all it is meant to do is serve as some sort of general guideline when dealing with new users. It's extremely sad that Inaba is bribing people to leave negative feedback for no reason. BFL has been unethical at best from day one but this sort of behavior is honestly just childish.
What I find most interesting, is that Inaba's "secondary" purpose of the contest was to show that the trust system is broken. I agree in some cases it is, but I would say that point has been a flop for this specific example. He tried to abuse the trust system, and took a hit himself. That shows that in this particular situation, the trust system works as planned. It needs some tweaking, but I don't say that it is completely ruined.
I don't see why people whine so much about the trust system, really all it is meant to do is serve as some sort of general guideline when dealing with new users. It's extremely sad that Inaba is bribing people to leave negative feedback for no reason. BFL has been unethical at best from day one but this sort of behavior is honestly just childish.
Inaba: -261: -5 / +5(5). Is that a new record?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/hashfastcl-151974-8502: -13 / +1(1) with depth = 3
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #bJPL2bHAnK941tNh
Inaba: -261: -5 / +5(5). Is that a new record?
*Shakes head in disgust*
BFL must be getting desperate to resort to bribery.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=42514 People are still falling for it, look at his sent.
No idiot in defaultTrust will ever do anything for an imaginary Imperial Monarch.
They are ridiculous.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #QTfYvTgAP0WmxMbm
Quote
So don't worry about what Dogie says, his complaints are meaningless and the trust system will likely be removed/changed after we are done.
They are ridiculous.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #QTfYvTgAP0WmxMbm
Heres the link to the BFL forum where they have the OP's quote posted.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html
Definately earned a neg from me. Did they get permission from Theymos? Probably not exactly, they probably asked "can I do a promotion involving trust?" In which the answer would be sure, you are allowed to do whatever you want with the current trust system. However trying to buy trusts always backfires.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html
Definately earned a neg from me. Did they get permission from Theymos? Probably not exactly, they probably asked "can I do a promotion involving trust?" In which the answer would be sure, you are allowed to do whatever you want with the current trust system. However trying to buy trusts always backfires.
I've asked Theymos to comment when he's around.
Some of Josh's comments as to why I should be bombarded with negative trust are amazing though:
Quote
Dogie and Bicknellski are trolls on Bitcointalk, I figured it would be appropriate to use troll accounts for that demonstration. I included Theymos as well to prove that I have talked with him about the demonstration and that I'm not trying to hide or scam anything (not sure what I'm trying to scam here, according to Dogie, anyway). The good thing is, I don't need Dogies permission to run a contest, last I checked!
So don't worry about what Dogie says, his complaints are meaningless and the trust system will likely be removed/changed after we are done. The whole point is to show that the system can be gamed and twisted with minimal effort. Dogie begging you to remove the rating is part of whole thing... if he can convince, plead, pay, etc... you to remove the negative rating, then the system has been subverted, just like you are being convinced, pleaded with or paid to leave positive feedback. This is being done publicly to demonstrate what is possible. If this were done privately, either through a private system of communication or through a use of many shill accounts, one would never know it was possible or happening.
So the whole point is that anyone can use whatever method they choose to get YOU to do what THEY want you to do, whether it's remove feedback that helps guide others or to add feedback that deceives others.
Also - please be sure you click the "This rating is negative -- the person is not trustworthy" check box on the negative trust postings, otherwise it defaults to positive, which is also a huge problem with the system. (It should be a non-defaulted radio button)
So don't worry about what Dogie says, his complaints are meaningless and the trust system will likely be removed/changed after we are done. The whole point is to show that the system can be gamed and twisted with minimal effort. Dogie begging you to remove the rating is part of whole thing... if he can convince, plead, pay, etc... you to remove the negative rating, then the system has been subverted, just like you are being convinced, pleaded with or paid to leave positive feedback. This is being done publicly to demonstrate what is possible. If this were done privately, either through a private system of communication or through a use of many shill accounts, one would never know it was possible or happening.
So the whole point is that anyone can use whatever method they choose to get YOU to do what THEY want you to do, whether it's remove feedback that helps guide others or to add feedback that deceives others.
Also - please be sure you click the "This rating is negative -- the person is not trustworthy" check box on the negative trust postings, otherwise it defaults to positive, which is also a huge problem with the system. (It should be a non-defaulted radio button)
Heres the link to the BFL forum where they have the OP's quote posted.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html
Definitely earned a neg from me. Did they get permission from Theymos? Probably not exactly, they probably asked "can I do a promotion involving trust?" In which the answer would be sure, you are allowed to do whatever you want with the current trust system. However trying to buy trusts always backfires.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html
Definitely earned a neg from me. Did they get permission from Theymos? Probably not exactly, they probably asked "can I do a promotion involving trust?" In which the answer would be sure, you are allowed to do whatever you want with the current trust system. However trying to buy trusts always backfires.
I'm so fucking disgusted in this behaviour.
These dickhead's behaviour will go down in history along with every other trolling or terrible behaviour.
I mean, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!
I hope theymos finally bans these people for their continued bribing and forum manipulation. What he got to say on this matter?
On a side note, this seems to be backfiring lol
These dickhead's behaviour will go down in history along with every other trolling or terrible behaviour.
I mean, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!
I hope theymos finally bans these people for their continued bribing and forum manipulation. What he got to say on this matter?
On a side note, this seems to be backfiring lol
Where's bcp19 to back the cockroaches up? Bet he thinks its all ok to ask people add positive feedback to his blatentantly horrific accounts while creating negitive for people who have not consented to this bullshit! This is so low ha ha
And thermalflask is just as big a con man than bfl! He doesn't give a shit as has been shown time and time again!
This is just sick and twisted and shows they're going be in the mt gox hole before the year out! Abandon ships, the emporier as no clothes hahahaha
Dirstt filthy cockroach josh, I told you he was! No one ever listens to sense, instead they feed trolls like bcp19
And thermalflask is just as big a con man than bfl! He doesn't give a shit as has been shown time and time again!
This is just sick and twisted and shows they're going be in the mt gox hole before the year out! Abandon ships, the emporier as no clothes hahahaha
Dirstt filthy cockroach josh, I told you he was! No one ever listens to sense, instead they feed trolls like bcp19
Just for the record, I do NOT consent to this.
LOL....
Hahaahaha. I relish the fact they are putting bounties on my head. Amazing eh? You can't have people just post REAL trust ratings you have to pay for them. Ethically challenged? What a joke.
When will they get their rewards? March 2014?
If anyone takes BFL up on that offer they are selling their reputation for hardware. At least they are admitting they need to PAY FOR positive ratings and discredit me and dogie for the same coin and goes directly to the fact that Inaba has been abusing the trust system since it's implementation and a good reason to BAN him and BFL from the forums entirely.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198 (Inaba)
Feel free to counter Inaba's attempt to trash the trust ratings by posting your own negative or positive feedback. He has already lied countless times in Trust ratings and people can verify that independently by just checking what he posts for negative feedback on the trust of various people. I suggest this is just another ploy to discredit the trust system and bring it down so that his negative ratings and BFL's negatives will disappear. Don't let him run from his past keep posting the TRUTH as you know it bitcointalk members. It looks like BFL is feeling the pain and is really working on their psyops full on now. Laughable.
Any of this look familiar in BFL's and Inaba's playbook? Anyone know exactly what sort of work he did in the past for the Army? Hmmm... funny his tactics seem to be right out of the psyops right? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/
Hahaahaha. I relish the fact they are putting bounties on my head. Amazing eh? You can't have people just post REAL trust ratings you have to pay for them. Ethically challenged? What a joke.
When will they get their rewards? March 2014?
If anyone takes BFL up on that offer they are selling their reputation for hardware. At least they are admitting they need to PAY FOR positive ratings and discredit me and dogie for the same coin and goes directly to the fact that Inaba has been abusing the trust system since it's implementation and a good reason to BAN him and BFL from the forums entirely.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198 (Inaba)
Code:
Bicknellski 14: -0 / +16(16) 2014-03-30 0.00000000 Reference Buying Trust ratings. What is wrong with that? (Delete)
Feel free to counter Inaba's attempt to trash the trust ratings by posting your own negative or positive feedback. He has already lied countless times in Trust ratings and people can verify that independently by just checking what he posts for negative feedback on the trust of various people. I suggest this is just another ploy to discredit the trust system and bring it down so that his negative ratings and BFL's negatives will disappear. Don't let him run from his past keep posting the TRUTH as you know it bitcointalk members. It looks like BFL is feeling the pain and is really working on their psyops full on now. Laughable.
Any of this look familiar in BFL's and Inaba's playbook? Anyone know exactly what sort of work he did in the past for the Army? Hmmm... funny his tactics seem to be right out of the psyops right? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/
I normally don't quote as many things are regurgitated here many times, But I have to do this one from BFL website.
Has theymos actually authorized this? Didn't he implement this "trust" system?
and Dogie, Bicknellski How do these tie in? Surly they did not approve this?
Quote
Win a Butterfly Labs Imperial Monarch!
In an effort to demonstrate and consequently improve and repair the trust rating system on Bitcointalk, I am holding a contest that will provide concrete examples of how the trust system is broken on Bitcointalk.
I have spoken with Theymos, the operator of Bitcointalk, about this and I have his full knowledge and permission to perform this experiment, with the prize being an Imperial Monarch to one lucky winner!
Starting now and running until we start shipping the 28nm Monarch based products, anyone may enter into the contest by posting to the trust feedback system on Bitcointalk. Each entrant must make 6 separate trust entries. There will be 3 positive entries that must be made and 3 negative entries that must be made. You must make all 6 entries each day to be eligible for the drawing on the day we ship the products. On the day we officially start shipping, the contest entries will be closed. The next block to be found on or after midnight UTC of the following day will be the winning block. We will use Bitcoin Blockchain raffle ticket picker to decide the winning number. Entry numbers will be taken in order they are posted each day and numbering of each day after the first will continue where the previous day left off. The winning number will be chosen at random via the blockchain.
Entrants may make one entry per day. Multiple entries per day will be ignored and only one valid entry will be allowed per day.
Summary of the rules:
1. One entry per person, per day.
2. Entries will consist of 3 positive and 3 negative Trust entries on Bitcointalk.org to the accounts specified. (Listed below)
3. Entries will close the day we ship our first Monarch product to a paying customer. Entries will be accepted up to 23:59 UTC of that day.
4. The winner will be chosen at random via the next block on or after 00:00 (midnight) UTC the day after we begin shipping.
5. The winning list will be compiled through taking each set of 6 entries by a single individual per day and entering their name in the list, in order of posting as displayed by the Bitcointalk.org website. Each subsequent day after the first will start where the previous days list left off.
6. Trust entries must not be cut and pasted from previous days and must be unique each day. Entries must not be gibberish or otherwise unintelligible entries. (Sorry, but you will have to put some thought into it!)
7. DO NOT SPAM MULTIPLE ENTRIES! THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRY ALLOWED PER DAY. Multiple entries per day are useless and likely to be removed. Anyone found spamming the system will be disqualified.
8. Only valid Bitcointalk accounts registered prior to the 28th of March, 2014 are allowed to enter. Accounts registered after this date are ineligible to participate.
9. Incorrect feedback type will disqualify an entry. (For example, leaving a negative feedback on one of the positive accounts or a positive feedback on a negative account will be disqualified.)
10. Shipping of the winning entry will be at the end of the current pre-order queue. Although I will try to slip in the shipment of the entry earlier than that if we have a gap in the queue based on anyone electing to take a refund, but I can not guarantee that at the moment, as I don't know if we'll have enough refunds to allow that without compromising paying customers shipping schedule.
11. If the operator(s) of Bitcointalk or other entities decide to discontinue this demonstration/experiment early or disallow the feedback for any reason, this contest becomes null and void. I will design a new contest to replace this one in just such an occurrence with the same prize available.
Leave Positive feedback for these three accounts:
Inaba: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198
BFL_Josh: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=63314
BFL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=44366
Leave Negative feedback for these three accounts:
Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35
Dogie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=87869
Bicknellski:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=76550
Background information on the reasons behind this contest:
Many people believe that the trust system on Bitcointalk is not only useless, but actually counter productive to a fair and balanced system for evaluating the viability of conducting trade on Bitcointalk. There are countless examples of the system being gamed, and false ratings being applied to individuals, unrelated to any sort of actual trust scenarios. Many scammers use this as a method to instill trust in their victims, allowing them to continue scamming with impunity. Other use the trust system as a way to air grievances, which is not a valid use of the system and also contributes to false rating levels for numerous individuals. The operators of Bitcointalk do not believe the system is broken and further more do not believe it can be gamed. With the small time gaming that has happened in the past, it is hard to differentiate legitimate feedback from illegitimate feedback. This contest, I believe, will conclusively prove that the system can easily be gamed in one direction or the other with minimal effort. Per the rules of the contest, there will be an equal number of positively gamed trust accounts as negatively gamed trust accounts, which will definitively prove that either direction is possible.
I have spoken to Theymos at length over this issue and informed him that I will be conducting this demonstration, so he is aware of the impending demonstration and the likely results. It is possible that I am in fact incorrect about my understanding of how the system actually functions behind the scenes, but I do not believe this to be the case. Hopefully, upon the conclusion of this demonstration, Theymos will be convinced of the lack of viability of the system and replace it with a more viable system or remove it entirely. While this certainly won't solve all of the problems Bitcointalk faces, at least we can try little steps to try and rehabilitate Bitcointalk as a place people can have civil discourse and believe what they read there instead of being forced to ignore the vast majority of the site.
In an effort to demonstrate and consequently improve and repair the trust rating system on Bitcointalk, I am holding a contest that will provide concrete examples of how the trust system is broken on Bitcointalk.
I have spoken with Theymos, the operator of Bitcointalk, about this and I have his full knowledge and permission to perform this experiment, with the prize being an Imperial Monarch to one lucky winner!
Starting now and running until we start shipping the 28nm Monarch based products, anyone may enter into the contest by posting to the trust feedback system on Bitcointalk. Each entrant must make 6 separate trust entries. There will be 3 positive entries that must be made and 3 negative entries that must be made. You must make all 6 entries each day to be eligible for the drawing on the day we ship the products. On the day we officially start shipping, the contest entries will be closed. The next block to be found on or after midnight UTC of the following day will be the winning block. We will use Bitcoin Blockchain raffle ticket picker to decide the winning number. Entry numbers will be taken in order they are posted each day and numbering of each day after the first will continue where the previous day left off. The winning number will be chosen at random via the blockchain.
Entrants may make one entry per day. Multiple entries per day will be ignored and only one valid entry will be allowed per day.
Summary of the rules:
1. One entry per person, per day.
2. Entries will consist of 3 positive and 3 negative Trust entries on Bitcointalk.org to the accounts specified. (Listed below)
3. Entries will close the day we ship our first Monarch product to a paying customer. Entries will be accepted up to 23:59 UTC of that day.
4. The winner will be chosen at random via the next block on or after 00:00 (midnight) UTC the day after we begin shipping.
5. The winning list will be compiled through taking each set of 6 entries by a single individual per day and entering their name in the list, in order of posting as displayed by the Bitcointalk.org website. Each subsequent day after the first will start where the previous days list left off.
6. Trust entries must not be cut and pasted from previous days and must be unique each day. Entries must not be gibberish or otherwise unintelligible entries. (Sorry, but you will have to put some thought into it!)
7. DO NOT SPAM MULTIPLE ENTRIES! THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRY ALLOWED PER DAY. Multiple entries per day are useless and likely to be removed. Anyone found spamming the system will be disqualified.
8. Only valid Bitcointalk accounts registered prior to the 28th of March, 2014 are allowed to enter. Accounts registered after this date are ineligible to participate.
9. Incorrect feedback type will disqualify an entry. (For example, leaving a negative feedback on one of the positive accounts or a positive feedback on a negative account will be disqualified.)
10. Shipping of the winning entry will be at the end of the current pre-order queue. Although I will try to slip in the shipment of the entry earlier than that if we have a gap in the queue based on anyone electing to take a refund, but I can not guarantee that at the moment, as I don't know if we'll have enough refunds to allow that without compromising paying customers shipping schedule.
11. If the operator(s) of Bitcointalk or other entities decide to discontinue this demonstration/experiment early or disallow the feedback for any reason, this contest becomes null and void. I will design a new contest to replace this one in just such an occurrence with the same prize available.
Leave Positive feedback for these three accounts:
Inaba: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198
BFL_Josh: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=63314
BFL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=44366
Leave Negative feedback for these three accounts:
Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35
Dogie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=87869
Bicknellski:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=76550
Background information on the reasons behind this contest:
Many people believe that the trust system on Bitcointalk is not only useless, but actually counter productive to a fair and balanced system for evaluating the viability of conducting trade on Bitcointalk. There are countless examples of the system being gamed, and false ratings being applied to individuals, unrelated to any sort of actual trust scenarios. Many scammers use this as a method to instill trust in their victims, allowing them to continue scamming with impunity. Other use the trust system as a way to air grievances, which is not a valid use of the system and also contributes to false rating levels for numerous individuals. The operators of Bitcointalk do not believe the system is broken and further more do not believe it can be gamed. With the small time gaming that has happened in the past, it is hard to differentiate legitimate feedback from illegitimate feedback. This contest, I believe, will conclusively prove that the system can easily be gamed in one direction or the other with minimal effort. Per the rules of the contest, there will be an equal number of positively gamed trust accounts as negatively gamed trust accounts, which will definitively prove that either direction is possible.
I have spoken to Theymos at length over this issue and informed him that I will be conducting this demonstration, so he is aware of the impending demonstration and the likely results. It is possible that I am in fact incorrect about my understanding of how the system actually functions behind the scenes, but I do not believe this to be the case. Hopefully, upon the conclusion of this demonstration, Theymos will be convinced of the lack of viability of the system and replace it with a more viable system or remove it entirely. While this certainly won't solve all of the problems Bitcointalk faces, at least we can try little steps to try and rehabilitate Bitcointalk as a place people can have civil discourse and believe what they read there instead of being forced to ignore the vast majority of the site.
Has theymos actually authorized this? Didn't he implement this "trust" system?
and Dogie, Bicknellski How do these tie in? Surly they did not approve this?
Jump to: