Topic: Copycat Signatures: Chipmixer and Wasabi - page 2. (Read 1829 times)

If you're going to tag theymos, don't forget to tag satoshi too, he's the one who put theymos in charge

wow, thank you! we're coming back to the source of all trouble.

EDIT: I suggest we should go back to the original intention for the Trust system by theymos, if you will agree? I did not trade with so much people here.

See:

so negative feedback is wrong just neutral feedback?

and did you developed the Trust system or was it theymos? where are the official guidelines?

thank you!

EDIT: with great respect but you've started in 2015?

Don't worry about it, I'm shooting with blanks, following my Beginners Guide (from your signature) so that negative feedback doesn't lose it's meaning. And that's why my feedback means something, while you'll be at DT2 Strength (-10) or lower if you keep abusing the Trust system. Have it your way.

Now I have to leave him neutral feedback for Trust abuse:


He's not in my Trust network, but it turns out willi9974 put Gyrsur on DT2:
I'll also exclude him from my Trust list, and I recommend others to do the same:
Maybe I should wait a bit, he's still on a negative feedback spree. He'll earn way more exclusions if he leaves fake negative feedback while on DT2.

@Gyrsur: if you want to tag all ChipMixer signature campaign participants, let me help you:

Well he certainly has been leaving some very strange feedback. I wonder why accusations of conspiracies and gangs running this forum are thrown around by people that have run out of actual substance of debate.

Of all the things I thought I would never see in this forum I never thought you would be accused of being involved in some shady business or government honeypot  

This seems off-topic (and in need of evidence) to me, so no, I won't comment on it here. But I think you missed my point: if you want to argue against negative feedback, at least use the right arguments.
It could be as simple as: "I've removed the fake signature, please consider removing the negative feedback".

---

---

I like seeing my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system in your signature

We clearly see different things from our different vantage points but you can go ahead and revel in your happiness. Now since I wasted a lot of my time with you it is time to add you back where you belong on my ignore list so I can skip past reading your nonsense.

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"   

After removing you from my ignore list to read what you have to say I was disappointed.

This is getting beyond preposterous now... I mean even to mention or allude to the mafia and the cliques is downright disrespectful. There is no inner-circle and there is no cartel and anyway what has that got to do with you making a complete fool of yourself first for stealing the CM signature and then to play the role of the clown by making sarcastic comments by semi-defending your conduct?

how about the support of inner circles and shady cartels? will you also comment on this so quick as you did before?  

None of this has anything to do with the negative feedback you received. Bitcointalk has never supported plagiarism.

Here I am again.

"Who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)

May those first stand up who suffered financial damage which justifies the negative trust.

Thank you!

EDIT: Furthermore Wasabi Wallet is a decentralized service and the other service is a highly centralized service which you have to trust in. There where times here on this place where everyone was eager to defend decentralization with all its strength. That were the glory times with the right spirit of the idea behind Bitcoin.

EDIT2: and second: give me a prove that the other service is fully trustworthy and not a government honeypot for later usage. I know this might not possible until to reveal the identity of the owner or operator of the service which will be dangerous for them. so again you have to trust them in any case and the deep pockets of them are for me a red light of attention. but everyone should decide for themselves. time will tell probably.

Thank you for this link LoyceV, it seems you have not lost that super-fast reaction for yours whilst under lock down 

Let's see: https://loyce.club/archive/details/topic_5229417.html

For what it's worth: that's how I use it.

Incoming; I'll try to make it short, I'm not a fan of text walls unlike some other people around here...

---

Even if I see were you are coming from with these quotes, I only see some users saying that the trust system is used that way, not that it's the right way to use it.

Was that before or after the changes made to the trust system? I'm not on my computer and can't search for the date, but I consider that to be quite relevant, since there used to be no posibility of leaving neutrals.

---

I totally get that, and I agree with you regarding the need to talk some issues before taking any action; while others require action first and discussion afterwards. Was the red tag incorrect? It may be, according to the own trust page, red tags are for when "You think that trading with this person is high-risk" which I don't believe is the case here; but that's not what my post was about (OMG; was it offtopic?). Following that same guideline, counter-positives are also incorrect, because they are meant to be placed when "You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone"; not when you see some other tags you deem incorrect are in place and want to counter them.

I've also checked LoyceV's trust guide, which I'm aware is a mere guideline, but a pretty good one; and the counter feedbacks are not considered in neither positive or negative use cases, so it's safe to assume they'd fall into the "Other" category, and thus neutral tag.

Of course, everything trust related is very subjective, but we shouldn't be using it the old way, just based on tradition. Neutral tags were introduced for a reason, and they should be used more often in these kind of situations.

I had to search through some posts to re-familiarise myself with what this was all about.

From what I recall, it seems clear that he (Gyrsur) himself is to blame to courting negative publicity and he seemed to thrive upon it at the time. Now with him deleting his posts from this or other threads where he seemed far from apologetic and enjoyed the attention being showered upon him, does not put him in a good light. I was surprised that only 2 people tagged him, it probably should have been more.

In your opinion he is trollish and it does not imply he would be untrustworthy when it comes to conducting any sort of business on the forum and because he has been here 2012 he does not deserve to have his reputation tarnished but I have a different opinion.

Firstly, when he used the signature and it was highlighted to him that he should not he came out fighting with sarcastic comments then decided to change the colour just to make it look "different". Had he showed a different attitude rather than dig in and behave like an immature brat then there would have been no reason for me to tag him. In my opinion he is someone I would not do any form of business with because of his attitude and conduct after it was pointed out to him he stole the signature and used it in an unacceptable manner. Him using the signature to start with was an issue that could have been resolved by him removing it and maybe apologising, his sarcasm and dismissing other views was the issue that led to him being considered untrustworthy and someone who nobody should do business/trade with.

Several members tagged users that no longer wear Yobit signatures but displayed them during the time Yobit was promoting its scam here, does that mean that in every case each of those users that left neutral or red trust should remove or edit the trust just because they are now wearing other signatures? Especially those users that refused to stop promoting Yobit after they were personally kindly requested to stop promoting scams?

If replacing the word scam with deceive, would that also be enough to remove tags? The user Gyrsur deliberately stole the signature then courted negative posts and basically showed himself to be untrustworthy. Who in their right mind would trade with him when he could not be trusted with removing a signature he stole after it was pointed out to him? He probably has zero connection with Wasabi yet he brought their name in to this drama too. In my opinion he is absolutely untrustworthy because of his conduct.

I will replace my red with a neutral tag in order to bring this issue to an end from my side but I see no reason why DarkStar_ would remove his negative tag:

I've never heard anyone say that before. What is your rationalization for that statement?




And I can't find the theymos quote for it but:


My rationalization is that the negative was incorrect in the first place, so I am simply attempting to undo that. I don't engage in this practice often but this time I think it is warranted.

Ultimately my post here is more of a request that DarkStar_ and JollyGood consider re-evaluating their negative trust on Gyrsur. I'd rather attempt to resolve the issue this way rather than excluding them from my trust network as they of course contribute more good than bad overall. I'm also open to hearing arguments as to why the negative feedback should remain. As things stand, I just can't see how it relates to trustworthiness of trade activity on the forum.