Topic: Bitcointalk account (Read 6003 times)

No.

First of all, wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source in the educational world, in the professional world, in the media world, or pretty much anywhere. The fact that people cite wikipedia as often as they do on here baffles me. Secondly, wikipedia entries cannot come from firsthand knowledge, they must be from researched sources......meaning that just because I fake being sick to get out of going to school on 9/11 (2001), and as a result was able to personally witness the twin towers collapse a mere blocks from where I was standing at age 16, does not mean that I can write that the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11 in a wikipedia article, I would need to find a news (or other) source that says that the WTC towers collapsed, and cite those sources in order for me to publish that fact.

Additionally, it is generally considered to be acceptable to receive a small financial benefit as a(n) (indirect) result of a relationship with you being in a position of authority and the other person being a vendor, customer, or employee. It is generally within the boundaries of the code of ethics of most large companies for someone of authority to receive/accept up to between $25 and $200 (with ~$100 being both the mode and mean acceptable amount) worth of gifts without approval from the ethics board and without violating the code of ethics. In my experience, the limit is on a per customer/vender/employee basis, meaning that I can receive up to $100 worth of gifts from each employee/customer/vendor that I oversee/make decisions regarding. The exemptions to this limit tend to increase as your level of responsibility increases (for example congressmen are able to accept up to $3,000 per campaign cycle in campaign contributions from each person, in addition to other things).

I think it is fair to say that I have received an additional benefit of less then $100 (worth of bitcoin) as a (hypothetical) result (which is likely an invalid conclusion that prices rise as a result of scammer accounts getting tagged as scammers) of me giving negative trust to scammer accounts (tspacepilot for example) on a per customer basis - the price of bitcoin is currently ~$235/BTC which would mean the price of an account would need to rise by ~.42 BTC in order for the above $100 threshold to be breached while senior accounts have generally been selling for barely .3 BTC recently, and heros have barely been selling for .7 BTC recently (I don't think anyone will be able to provide evidence that over 60% of the value of hero accounts is the result of my negative repping scammers).

Additionally, it is common for respected members of various markets to call out scams in their markets. Stunna, for example has been accused to accusing gambling sites of being a scam a number of times (when they turned out to be a scam) in order to hurt his competition; however his ultimate goal was to prevent people from being able to scam in the first place and as a result raising confidence in his industry; this is actually something that I have discussed with him a number of times. Just because you call a competitor of yours a scam does not mean you are trying to quash the competition, as if you were to end up being wrong then your reputation will suffer over the long run. The purpose of pointing out scams in your industry/market is to ensure that people feel safe when dealing in your market/industry.

---

All of the above ignores the fact that I am no longer in the account selling market and have not been for several months now. I no longer am holding any inventory. The only time I would hold any accounts at all would be either for escrow or for me acting as an agent to a third party (which would actually harm me because I would need to purchase accounts at a higher price on behalf of someone else).

Yes you can but one thing to keep in mind is if you are banned or your IP is flagged by bitcointalk you will have to pay a fee of a varying small amount for each account you create.

Alright, I think we can agree that QS has a conflict of interest. My understanding of COI was indeed a bit off. I personally dont think they misuse their position on DT for their personal gain from selling accounts.


Its my understanding, and the last attempt to change the system by theymos reinforces this, that the Trust System is mainly a community driven tool. Yes, admins are on DT and add or remove people from it, but its rules are mostly decided by the community and can change over time. IIRC trading accounts lead to neg rep when I started here. Thus a change in the system would have to come from a large userbase or at least from enough influential members.
IMHO higher standards on ratings from those on DT should do the trick.


Yes the hyperbole was amusing for a while, but Im afraid it only resulted in the majority of people that actualy cared about this topic to abandon thread. I dont know, maybe you should. Maybe it turns out that a large portion of the community does not care about bought trust.

Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.  The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible).  Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company.  Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not.  My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious.  Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset.  I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters.  The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit.  Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists.
Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.


Neg-repping for arguments sake is certainly wrong. I already mentioned signature campaigns above and yes I see their very strict "no neg rep" rules and I dont understand them from a DT perspective. From a marketing perspective it certainly makes sense, because you are afraid to look bad. This is actually a valid point I have not considered in that regard before. Your negative rating by Quickseller is now prohibiting you earning from your posts. Who is to blame though? Should those on DT keep the possible signature earning is mind when leaving a rating? I dont think thats a good idea. Should we force certain practices regarding the signature campaigns? Sounds like a bad idea.
Having a higher standard on what is evidence might be a solution though. I dont think its unreasonable to ask for higher quality in terms of evidence. After all being on DT is giving your ratings more influence. On the other hand many ratings are merely hunches, esp towards newbies.