...would have to drop the pseudoanonymity to build a reputation though...
A brand can build a reputation. For example, "nanotube from bitcointalk.org" is a pseudonymous brand that has built a good reputation.
Topic: It seems irreversible payments are a paradigm shift: Scams everywhere. (Read 8308 times)
September 12, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
September 12, 2012, 09:35:00 AM
Should be a votecoin that sits alongside bitcoin and you can vote for acceptable community standards by spending them at "elections" or "polls" to decide on different decisions to be made.
At least you cant bribe the bitcoin protocol or get dead people to vote for one party
At least you cant bribe the bitcoin protocol or get dead people to vote for one party
September 12, 2012, 06:57:25 AM
Irreversibility and relative anonymity....not likely to bring out the best in people...
Or, conversely, might bring out the best people to the forefront of visibility (since people may end up competing for good reputation).
September 11, 2012, 10:21:36 PM
Irreversibility and relative anonymity....not likely to bring out the best in people...
Or, conversely, might bring out the best people to the forefront of visibility (since people may end up competing for good reputation).
September 11, 2012, 10:05:11 PM
Irreversibility and relative anonymity....not likely to bring out the best in people...
September 11, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
I don't think removing Marketplace is a good response. Just as throwing up your hands and saying "I've been scammed I'll never spend bitcoins again" shouldn't be the default response either. I suggest learning lessons and being more discerning. Although, for someone unwilling or unable to do so the "never spend bitcoins again" may become a decent option.
September 11, 2012, 08:51:37 PM
Start a thread in the meta section and if it's well written I will support it. Although perhaps due to your "notoriety" someone else should start it!
One already exists.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suggestion-remove-marketplace-subforum-108770
September 11, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
Ironic that the drug dealers on Silk Road have better reputation than the e-businessmen on this board.
I think Silk Road has the same problem - sellers build up a reputation, convince people to trust them with their money without escrow, and then run off with a whole bunch of money. They also apparently have a problem with "selective scammers"; some sellers make money by scamming individuals not trusted in the community whilst keeping their reputation up by doing honest business with reputable people who will vouch for them against the buyers they've scammed. September 11, 2012, 02:45:58 PM
Ironic that the drug dealers on Silk Road have better reputation than the e-businessmen on this board.
September 11, 2012, 11:23:08 AM
Regulation will come but it will likely come from individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others. We won't need an authority to do this.
I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
Individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others == authorityI've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
And then, if authority could be expressed as a mutually agreed upon change to the bitcoin protocol, why the hell not?
In essence, I agree with you but not your terminology.
The network has power and coerces the crap out of transactions on a level far far away from its users and their desires.
Only the top part of the bitcoin concept relies on the self-regulatory capability of the users.
The rest is written as protocols in stone.
Try to negotiate with the network and you will know where the boundaries are of what you call a self-regulating society.
Fact is, this self-regulating society could not have existed without the hardness of the underlying system.
Just see the panic when that system seems compromisable (51% attack and whatnot) and you know its importance.
September 11, 2012, 11:14:45 AM
Regulation will come but it will likely come from individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others. We won't need an authority to do this.
I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
Individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others == authorityI've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
And then, if authority could be expressed as a mutually agreed upon change to the bitcoin protocol, why the hell not?
In essence, I agree with you but not your terminology.
When someone sets a price for themselves and their participation, that is far from implying power over other people unless you believe people belong to people; ergo, we're entitled to one another. It's just implying power over themselves.
If you're advocating for authority over oneself, then I agree with you completely.
September 11, 2012, 11:13:42 AM
Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.
This is how the dev team works you know...
I just suggest that this process should extend to the community as a whole and be advertised as such.
September 11, 2012, 11:11:51 AM
Regulation will come but it will likely come from individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others. We won't need an authority to do this.
I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
Individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others == authorityI've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
And then, if authority could be expressed as a mutually agreed upon change to the bitcoin protocol, why the hell not?
September 11, 2012, 11:10:56 AM
I don't think an individual so easily scammed is someone those of us doing well in this Bitcoin free market should be consulting on how best to proceed. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game here, and your mismanagement of your funds has proven you do not have what it takes. If wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think, allowing yourself to become victim to a scam and lose your wealth is evidence of a total lack of any such capacity. Our only choice is to use government regulation to protect you from your own lack of clarity.
Define fitness..Because a.t.m. i see scammers being very very fit from a bitcoin aquisition perspective.
Absolutely, playing fair is not a virtue in this sort of unregulated free market system. There are no negative consequences for playing unfairly. You need communal values and firm government oversight to make sure honest business is the more logical path. Bitcoin will not reach it's destiny as the currency of the future until we have those things.
The only way to stop the scammers from having such a prominent place in the food chain is to start protecting the less fit scam victims like Atlas from themselves.
You don't need government, you need a stick.
And you need clear rules about when the stick is applied.
And everyone should agree to this before being alowed to use bitcoin.
Sounds like a governing body.
Governing body != government.
edit: and even then, it doesn't have to be a body as such. It could be intrinsic rules governing the network.
I mean, there are at this time rules governing the network.
Or do you think that bitcoins magically find their way from one account to another?
It's all based on rules that govern the behavior of the network.
The people who make the rules sound like a governing body.
Yes, satoshi is regulating the crap out of us.
Ever got angry because difficulty jumps?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.
Ever transfered bitcoin and happy that it actually arrived?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.
In the end SOMEONE needs to decide SOMETHING for there to be ANYTHING usefull.
Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.
Mobodick really does have a point.
It can be summed up as this: Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers. As always, there will be set etiquette in any society where people desire respect for themselves and their property. The form of governance that regulates and enforces this etiquette may vary.
September 11, 2012, 11:10:29 AM
Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.
This is how the dev team works you know...
September 11, 2012, 11:08:20 AM
I don't think an individual so easily scammed is someone those of us doing well in this Bitcoin free market should be consulting on how best to proceed. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game here, and your mismanagement of your funds has proven you do not have what it takes. If wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think, allowing yourself to become victim to a scam and lose your wealth is evidence of a total lack of any such capacity. Our only choice is to use government regulation to protect you from your own lack of clarity.
Define fitness..Because a.t.m. i see scammers being very very fit from a bitcoin aquisition perspective.
Absolutely, playing fair is not a virtue in this sort of unregulated free market system. There are no negative consequences for playing unfairly. You need communal values and firm government oversight to make sure honest business is the more logical path. Bitcoin will not reach it's destiny as the currency of the future until we have those things.
The only way to stop the scammers from having such a prominent place in the food chain is to start protecting the less fit scam victims like Atlas from themselves.
You don't need government, you need a stick.
And you need clear rules about when the stick is applied.
And everyone should agree to this before being alowed to use bitcoin.
Sounds like a governing body.
Governing body != government.
edit: and even then, it doesn't have to be a body as such. It could be intrinsic rules governing the network.
I mean, there are at this time rules governing the network.
Or do you think that bitcoins magically find their way from one account to another?
It's all based on rules that govern the behavior of the network.
The people who make the rules sound like a governing body.
Yes, satoshi is regulating the crap out of us.
Ever got angry because difficulty jumps?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.
Ever transfered bitcoin and happy that it actually arrived?
Thats Satoshis protocols governing bitcoin.
In the end SOMEONE needs to decide SOMETHING for there to be ANYTHING usefull.
Maybe we need some democratic process to decide the further governing of bitcoin.
It is badly needed and Satoshi won't help here.
It's up to us.
September 11, 2012, 11:04:52 AM
Regulation will come but it will likely come from individuals setting standards in acceptable trade etiquette for themselves and others. We won't need an authority to do this.
I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
I've spoken against this from time-to-time but I now realize how immature that was of me.
Things take time to evolve and grow.
September 11, 2012, 11:02:01 AM
In a regulated environment it would not have been possible to do these things peer-to-peer in such a "low overhead" way, and only bloated corporations would get to do them.
Bullshit and you know it.
Consider, for example, whether an individual such as Nefario can set up his own stock exchange in a regulated environment. Only bloated corporations get to do that. Yet in an unregulated peer-to-peer environment the overheads are so low that one person can implement a stock exchange. How cool is that!
And you still have to define what kind of regulation you talk about (that in this case would prevent Nefario from setting up his own stock exchange).
Applying the word 'regulated environment' is meaningless in bitcoin land.
We do not have a regulated environment.
The regulations happening in fiat for the most part do not (yet) apply to bitcoin so you can't transplant the fiat idea of 'regulation' to bitcoin.
September 11, 2012, 10:59:10 AM
If you are on the internet, the odds are VERY good that your entire notion of money is as bookkeeping, rather than something physical. Cash is something that you use despite the inconvenience in the few cases when you must use it, it is not your default.
Bookkeeping is very easy to undo, and we all grew up in that world. The shift to bitcoin is huge, and we all have a lot that we must unlearn.
Bookkeeping is very easy to undo, and we all grew up in that world. The shift to bitcoin is huge, and we all have a lot that we must unlearn.
September 11, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
I agree to an extent. I think bitcoin has made some great strides and this forum has aided greatly in self regulation.
I'd say yes and no.This forum works as social grease.
So naturally it helps some in self regulation as some users want to use the forum for that.
But the other side of the coin is that it also aided in the incubation of scams in a supposedly safe social environment.
I would say that the forum is agnostic in this respect were it not for the operators that seem to enjoy games being payed around.
The question is whether this moral agnosticism is the center this forum should operate around if it wants to provide a platform that can cultivate the bitcoin community.
I don't agree. The forum staff is actively involved in policing the form where scammers are involved. Look at TizzyTazzy, BTC Guy and TheBitMan. The Form and mods/admins were instrumental in the outcomes of these issues
I think that that's mostly about looking good to te community.
I see a lot of scummy things going on these fora without mods taking any action.
And i don't blame them, it IS fascinating to look at it and even to participate.
But the question is whether that sort of stuff belongs on a forum that represents the bitcoin community as a whole.
Jump to: