Topic: Don't trust LAUDA (Read 1967 times)

Lauda has managed some signature campaigns which did last very long the first one which was Bitmixer and the second one which is ongoing Coinpayments. So far I have not seen this person scam a single cent to the users or the managers of the campaign.

I am neutral in the stance regarding tagging accounts from Lauda but since this topic is about trust I think until now Lauda is a trustworthy member of this community.

Think again! But you only realize it when your shiny pretty account is suddenly spammed with red trust for nothing.

I never communicate directly with lauda, ​​but see it as one of the best in the forum I really believe it. She/He is the one who will clean the forun of spammers and scammers. What's wrong with that?
Why are you afraid if lauda gives you negative trust? If you do not make mistakes, I'm sure she/he will not do anything to you.

In the course of time you and lauda is far a little bit of time interval when registered. 
I think if you do it in voting who is the most popular and thrust worthy, lauda will surely win.
1774 vs. 350         activity
1440 vs. 264.        merit

so far. Let get ready to grumble.   

QS claims to have over 100 btc... odd that he is scamming for pennies, isn't it?

Quiet in here today.. has QS been busy shitposting on all his alt accounts for his mad sig moniez ?? I wonder how little that fool actually makes from his scamming ways?

Lauda is the person that has a lot of accusations which I often read in meta and in here. Actually who says that you should trust this person, trusting here to anyone is a kind of a great foolishness of a person. Everyone's identity is hidden, aside from this all have different motivation.
Most specially, this forum has many transactions which are money is involve, and everyone knows that money can ruin the trust.
Even I myself is not convinced by your statement and who cares with this opinion stated by a newbie like me.

Here is my last words: only a saint here which is a product of bitcoin you that can trust. But who is he? Even that person deserves no trust base on personal standard.

Somewhat, yes. This is one of the examples where I believe an alt account is justified (in most other cases, it isn't).


I expected it to be written after you getting tagged, which is what busted people usually do (and/or just simply attack the user that tagged them with whatever they can think of[1]). However, that is not the case here and I did notice the date before I even read it. That means that you aren't the classic type which became pretty predictable; good.
There are some things that I don't agree with on your article. However, I believe that this is not the place to continue this or address it. You might want to open your own thread in this section (about the article or the abuse) and continue there.

---

[1] The OP and this whole thread is an example of this.

Wow ---> now we're on the same page!  And, I wasn't only bringing this up because it happened to me ---> if you notice, the article I cited above was written two years ago ---> ( https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@cjmoles/exposition-of-bitcoin-s-hidden-exploit )  And, since that time, I've engaged diligently in quite a bit of research.  I do know a little more than I've been letting on.  Actually, I know A LOT more than I've been letting on.

To clarify: This is me just sharing an example of what happened to others *by someone's hand* not long ago. "Thou shalt not speak of my abuse!" - seems to be their motto.

Sure, but your concerns are misplaced and the motivation behind them isn't pristine. Even if we assume that what was done to you was abuse, you are complaining about it because it happened to you. There is abuse on a much larger scale, by higher placed members going on right now[1]. That's where the complaint should be. If the tree is rotten at the root, then you shouldn't be blaming the branches. Because of this rot, we are here today. There is an absurdly high number of cases and the number of honest DT2 members is very limited. The number of active (honest) ones is even lower.
Once fixed at the core, the tree should start rejuvenating itself.

---

[1] Backroom collusion by DT1 members.

Okay ---> I will take your advice and shut up before  ---> "things go downhill" for me.  I know how it works!  (Laugh Out Loud at the irony)  It truly has been a pleasure having this conversation with you and I apologize if it seems as though I were being an agitator because that wasn't my motive.  I only meant to engage in an honest discourse.

I've actually never seen any DT member state that publicly, in semi-private chatrooms or otherwise. Therefore, another baseless statement. You thread with care in your statements though; If you were to start naming people in these baseless accusations it would only go downhill for you (*someone* tagged some people for speaking out).

How about you just take a temporary break or completely leave the forum? That would be the best solution for your imagination.

---

The rating is well deserved, even though I'm not tagging people for advertising that scam. I should, but I don't. There's only so much that can be done.

SMILE ----> Favors?  Is that how works?  See, that's the problem....I'm not asking for favors; in fact, the "you do this for me and I will do that for you" trust manipulation is exactly the problem I am trying to point out ---> the quid pro quo harassment and favoritism is the problem.  I just call it how I see it and I don't care about the red paint --->I care about being part of an honest community and it seems as though things have gone astray with the reputation system here ----> it's backassward!  It's not new; I've been saying this for a long time ---> https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@cjmoles/exposition-of-bitcoin-s-hidden-exploit

There is very little to no substance in your words. Although I do see the, what I usually point out as "whiny bullshit". Acting the way that you currently are is not going to get you any favors either.

Really?  Wearing a signature from a site I trusted and spent my own money at for several years could get me tagged red?  But extortion, running phony escrows, managing signature campaigns for fake cloud mining sercvices, and endorsing altcoins that pull exit scams will get one green trusted?  See ---> that's your problem, you're ethically challenged!  That's why your credibility is being questioned.  That is the philosophy of those within your trust manipulation syndicate ---> you see nothing wrong with green trusting those ripping people off for thousands and thousands of dollars while, at the same time, tagging people red for "giving too much merit," "posting too frequently," "using broken English," "having alt accounts," "requesting loans with unqualified collateral," and "wearing signatures advertizing competitive markets."

You know what's funny?  I never scammed anybody, yet I was tagged by somebody who was wearing the signature from a campaign manager who represented two separate clients which had both scammed me personally!  Yet, not so much as a neutral "Hey Bud, maybe it's not cool to be managing advertisement campaigns which are scamming thousands of dollars from people" was tagged in their profiles!  LOL ---> You creeps are just straight up dirty!  That's all.  That's all there is to it.  I'm done now.  Got that off my chest. Thanks for listening.

EDIT:  Awesome Avatar though ---> good job!

If you knowingly advertise some shady service[1], then don't be surprise if you get tagged. I don't see anything wrong in getting tagged for advertising Betcoin.

---

[1] In no way can a objective tag of this sort be any kind of abuse.

Lauda, everything doesn't have to be about you! (SMILE) To be clear, I have lost much more than that on the forum....that's just the amount (7+ bitcoin) I've lost participating in specific campaigns promoted by campaign managers with green trust (who I do not blame) who's participating members, however, marked my trust red for merely wearing a competitive campaign's signature.  Trust abuse ---> by members who are also in your support network.  That's all.  The trust abuse is very corrosive and it needs to be exposed.

Well, the thread is about me thus my previous question. You said you'd lost over $70k to scammers. Elaborate?

I have no evidence of you personally scamming anybody....However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence regarding the issue of "trust abuse" surrounding the reputation network that supports your position.  I am not here to accuse anybody ---> I am simply pointing out that the trust abuse needs to stop ---> My comment was a just a response to Yahoo's comment for which he may have some personal insight.  My main complaint is that there have been plenty of highly questionable events that have received no reputation demerits, while at the same time there has been a practice of ruining other user's reputations for extremely minor nuances.  The big question is thus: why does a small group of associated members, many of which have been involved in seriously negative events, have green trust, while a much larger base of members, whom have not been involved in any scams whatsoever, have red trust?  Isn't there something wrong with that correlation?

Again, I am not accusing anybody of a scam, but I am claiming that trust abuse is a serious concern.

Are you trying to state that I'm a scammer? Please clarify.