Topic: FAKE TRUST AND MERIT SYSTEM ON BITCOINTALK (Read 675 times)

I doubt, you will get any answer. I also don't think OP has any interest or anything to talk fair here. OP is pissed by the red tags that s/he received for their shady activities and now s/he thinks BitcoinTalk forum's entire reputation is fake. It's just a made up, biased story.

''Merit is maintained by these same accounts of old Bitcointalk users who have all the power, and do not want to spread it equally with all the other users.'' Let's be honest, 99.99% of newbie accounts do not deserve any merit ever, they are either alt accounts of someone else or shit posters. OP name one account that has no merit and deserves 100 and I will agree with you.

Well, whatever you think it's up to you. I have no interest about what you are doing outside the forum however if it is something against the forum then I have problems with you.

- Would you mind to admit these(the bold marked statements)?

I knew some low life looser would dig up this.

PS: Spamming is also considered dodgy on bitcointalk.






Source: http://archive.is/qvxyB

Just like every other business enterprise or system, there is always a lot of politics going on and only those who know the rules gets paid at the end. All you need do is play the game as the system wants it to be played, do your own thing and forget anything else. It is politics everywhere it sure is. It is a give or takes affairs. The rules are simple: be smart, get merits: be clever avoid red trust.

Lol. I know about your fights regarding ladies but I think since you have your identity public and he doesn't I think he is the one who have no success with the ladies. Sorry for being a bit off topic but couldn't stay without saying that .

And narcissists like Quickseller...

OP has already a thread open in Reputation, why he needed to open up a new one here ? He thinks that he is the only one who is right and every other member of this forum is wrong. These are details and characteristics found only in dictators.

OP, would you like to do something to help us fight against these people?
1- compile a list of every single forum member with received green trust from DT2 members who tagged you.
2- find out if those people had any password changes after receiving green trust and compare their activities before and after password change.
3- then if you could find evidence of corruption, provide your evidence to name and shame DT2 members.

Writing butthurt articles is not going to help anybody here. good luck.
Hint: start with Vod.

Oh, a poorly written article by a guy that got tagged on this forum by 4 members and now he is pissed cause he can't become Legendary.

If those evilz high-rank members are :



No, it does not, there are plenty of members here that have even a tag from DT members and their life is not over...

This is my very favorite part:

"How to solve the problem?
Users can either trade Merit (send it to each other) or buy old accounts of people who no longer use Bitcointalk and want to sell them.

How ever these same old users are poisoning these type of deals by giving fake negative trust points to these people. They are really ready to do everything, in order not to take any more new people into their little club."

So he's talking about:
- Encouraging people to trade with merits.
- Encouraging people to buy accounts.

Man, you are just lazy. That's all. You want us to put for you a red carpet so you can become legendary in a week. The whole "article" is full of nonsense and non-truth.
For instance: I don't know if you are aware, but trading with merits is against the rules. So stop encouraging people to do that.
Besides,  when someone receives red trust generally is just with the will of awarding others, there are many hackers, spammers and so in here. Now, you say it is kind of unfair to buy a high-rank account and receive red trust but be conscious: people need years to make their own name in here, of course, it is difficult to believe in some legendary account sold, we don't know who's behind.
Definitely, it has been written by someone truly lazy and with lots of resentment.
That's sad, dude. This is far, very far, of how the forum works. This is just your resentment speaking. But, truly, what do you want? To rank-up in a week? To become a respectable member by encouraging others to break the rules?
Seriously, what' s your problem.

Again, these kind of bitch topics come down to the fact that you can still read as much as you like and post as much as you like, even if you have negative feedback.  You can probably even join a shitty altcoin bounty, and most likely you can even still do deals with people here if you chose to.  

The problem is that people like OP think they're entitled to come here and do what they want, but they quickly get a reality check--when you buy fake reviews, sell accounts, trade merits, or do anything that's considered untrustworthy by bitcointalk standards, you're going to earn a negative trust.

As far as the merit system is concerned, this has been discussed to death.  The concept that older members are only sending merits to other older members is simply untrue, and it's the lower-ranked members who are abusing the merit system to no end--hence all the negs they've earned for doing so.  If you can't be patient and not be so concerned about earning merit, take a hike.  Start your own forum where you can do what you want.

Edit:  Also, why do you think low-ranked members who haven't been around long should have the same status as higher-ranked members?  That's absurd, especially when most noobs are total spammers.

The trust system is something that needs a lot of improvement here. From what I understand, if a member gets a negative trust here, his profile become useless. He gets no chance to rectify his mistakes.

In case of merits, there is no negative action taken and it is good for all. If you do not get merits initially, it does no harm to your profile. You can always improve our posts and then gets merits to rank up. We cannot however generalize the whole system based on few incidents.

I’ve read your article and I thought at first that the “Fake” red alert image that you’ve inserted, was in fact a slip of the subconscious that drew you to qualify your own article in this manner. It’s very similar to those “Scam” video alerts that you see on the internet, which have no substance at all and do not depicts the facts by using solid proof. This is what happens in your article, thus turning into an opinion based article and not a contrasted research. You are entitled to your opinion, but we may differ as is natural. I do for one.

Being a self-proclaimed crypto advisor, with 123 followers on Medium and 33 on Twitter is more of a wannabe situation than a de facto one, so credibility only goes so far.

Anyway, regarding the article specifically, corruption accusations should be backed with facts, and these are not forwarded for the eye of the reader in your article. Court case does therefore not stand and should be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The forum is centralized only to some extent, since you need a minimum control and not complete anarchy. The idea is to have a collaborative Forum, and not a spam-fest place where ludicrous posts would too easily drown out any substance from the Forum if left to run wild. So yes, some centralization is required and some rules need to be added and fine-tuned over time as the Forum’s society evolves, opening up to the masses (I’m part of the masses by the way).

You seem to have got the account ranking system wrong: “You can spot them by their accounts as they all have Full Member, Hero or Legendary accounts.”
Sr. Members are left out of the tyrant oligarchy in your article, unless the “Sr.” is interpreted as “Sir/Señor” and thus are given the polite benefit of the doubt due to curtesy traditions.
The closed clan of tyrant old ranks are accused of not giving merit to the new ones. Old and New are not synonyms of Evil and Good, and the distinction is not boolean either. There are many old accounts that do not get any merit, and newer ones that do.

We could take a break here and agree that circulating sMerit is rather low objectively, buy we also need to take a look at what and how many posters write, and merit is not a word that comes close to what they often deserve (a double rehashing of the word merit could give us some close adjectives which I refrain from writing here).

Since I like data, I think it would be good to throw some into the picture here for the show:

•   Legendries send 67,08 % of their sMerit to ranks lower than theirs (22,36% to Members and below which are the lower ranks).
•   Heroes send 64,02 % of their sMerit to ranks lower than theirs (28,23% to Members and below which are the lower ranks).
•   Sr. Members send 56,83 % of their sMerit to ranks lower than theirs (35,23% to Members and below which are the lower ranks).
•   Full Members send 42,64 % of their sMerit to ranks lower than theirs (that’s all 42,64% to Members and below which are the lower ranks).

That data is drawn from the/my/our Merit Dashboard, derived from information provided or, let’s say, ingeniously derived from a centralized system.

What it goes to show is that people here (we are people after all) make a large effort to award sMerit to others, specifically to those lower ranks. While being on the topic, I know of (different from know directly) who go out of their way and spend large amounts of time searching for posts to Merit, often with a specific focus on newer forum users for part of the day (which I assure you is harder that in seems). We’d be better off personally with some sort of AI that did this task for us, therefore freeing-up some of our time and avoiding subjectivity. But it is 2018, so let´s move on...

Trust is something I personally don’t like too much, since it is subjective by nature (so is Merit, but the focus of trust is different) and I kind of hate false positives which demean the general intent of the Trust System. Frankly, I would rather see accounts being banned that having negative trust (some are later banned) although criteria would need to be very well versed for this to work properly.

I don’t believe negative trust is being given to harm people deliberately, but I know of a few that would differ from my thought on the matter. Even so, these are exceptional cases.

Finally, your solution to the problem is like proposing to rob a bank if you don’t have money (yes, I know, I mentioned FIAT on a crypto Forum – maybe I could shift the analogy to “hack an exchange”). That is not an ethical solution, and will not be a solution at all if caught red handed.
How did the saying go ... “Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.” This kind of sums-up the basics needed here on the Forum.

P.D. I'm rather new here, so my opinion cannot be rules out for being a high-ranked member according to OPs criteria.

OP you already have a topic for your trust rating and your refute against it (though it will be in vain) so there is no need to make another thread here in Meta. Threads in Meta are about topics related to the forum itself and not Marketplace trust issues. Use the "Reputation" section for that like you have already did. Since trust is something that is not moderated you can lock this thread up as it will be shitposted to smithereens.


Now coming back to merit system - merit is awarded to constructive and informative posts. Thats not even remotely related to Trust system.

You are nobody to judge whose comment count and whose do not. You seem to have an attitude problem.

 I've put you on ignore, as I don't want to read trivial posts from people who haven't the intelligence to understand the sophistication of the merit system here.

Opinion of "Hero member" is not counted here, as you are part of the corrupted gang.