Topic: ===►Maidak scammed me 400$ BTC,this time is for sure===► - page 2. (Read 18949 times)

Great that you can overthink your opinion. It shows grandeur to be able to do so. Many are not capable of that.

Saying that... you are right, the trust system surely is not perfect. But till now i did not see a proposal that would work better. There are proposals that would be a better system but it would not work because it would need work by every member. And that work surely won't be done.

First off, I'm a person trying to build my opinion based on logic. And I'm able to reconsider if reasonable arguments (those beyond "you are ridiculous" - hilariousandco, you would do me a big favor if you restrain from bringing the discussion down to this level) are brought to the table. I consider this a good property.

Well, one thing I obviously did not think through might be the fact that if only those who were involved in the trades gave negative feedback, his overall feedback would still be green, giving a wrong impression to potential trade partners. hilariousandco pointet that out already, I think.
Nevertheless the system, as it is, leaves margin for errors and abuse (who is to decide whom to trust, whom to mark as scammer etc?), but I think at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a perfect implementation of a trust system, and best which can be done is to make it as good as possible and keep good track of who is being trusted.

Even though I'm not exactly new to this board, I consider this a compliment. :*

The rating is from 10 days ago although clicking on that person's profile shows that he has not authenticated in 43 days so I am not sure exactly what happened or when it happened.

Maybe someone who knows more about OTC can give more information about that rating.

I tried to find what you are referring to but i could not find a thread or accusation against dooglus that he might be involved into trust selling. I really can't imagine that. Dooglus is very trusted. He held 10 of thousands k bitcoins on just-dice and paid them all back when he stopped allowing bitcoins on just-dice.

What are you referring to?

Yeah... the trust system is not perfect and as long as members on default trust did not do something really wrong, they will stay on default trust. It is a system, though not a perfect one. If a better system can be suggested go on.

And it wouldn't have mattered when only some people not on default trust would have rated him negative. What a potential user would have done would have been checking his trust... very green. Then maybe check trust page... all green too. That already would convince practically everyone that he is no scammer when all established members say so.

Only a very small percent would have opened the non default feedback, or would have known about that link at all. And then they would have to go through a massive list of feedback.

Sorry but that would definitely NOT work.

Maidak? I'm actually surprised to read another forum user claiming the same ridiculous opinion that maidak, a legendary scammer on bitcointalk that scammed k of thousands USD should have no red trust rating, no zero trust rating but instead a nice green trust rating.

Well, i wonder if you thought that through. If you did and you still demanded that then i wonder what kind of person you are. You would help scammers all the way to proceed scamming it seems.

I will assume that you did NOT think this through.

And which abuse? Warning because a persons scammed? That is abuse? If real abuse is happening then threads are opened and people drop from default trust list. It's working for the most part.

Hm... might have been enough to clear his reputation on bitcointalk.org with that amount of money. This didn't happen yet so i wonder what happened with that amount of money.

Or was the one giving that rating one of the scammed ones on here?

Anyway... seeing that gives not much hope.

I understand this argument.  However, I don't agree with your conclusions.  I hope you can respect that.Yes, and some people (surprisingly enough) are selling these default trust accounts for profit.  How does that affect your trust in the "default trust" network?I think it's very strange that you accuse me of being off topic but here you seem to be talking about something completely unrelated.  If you have questions about dooglus or a loan he gave me, or anything along those lines, perhaps you should PM either of us, or start a thread about your questions if you want them to be public.This is an assertion, not an argument.  I hope it's okay for me to disagree with your assertion.
Unpopular is not the same thing as off-topic.  allyouracid wrote about people uninvolved in the situation giving many repetitious negative feedbacks.  He was called ridiculous and was diagreed with.  I happen to agree with him and I tried to argue why.  Now both you and hilarious have replied to me with insults, accusations, and references to other situations and people (tecshare and dooglus) and then you go on to say that I am off-topic.  Please, gentlemen, I don't have anything more to say to you about this.  I hope you can allow me to disagree with you without attacking me personally.  If you want to talk about other situations, there are other threads.

New users may not be able to judge the evidence that is being presented. This is why more experienced traders are in the default trust network as they are more able to accurately come to the conclusion that someone has scammed in the past. There are plenty of baseless accusations out there and without the trust system inexperienced users would not be able to conclude who should be trusted and who should not be.

You need to remember that scammers also like to create and purchase a lot of accounts and use such accounts to give trust to themselves; without the default trust network, it would be easy for scammers to make themselves look like it is appropriate to trust them with larger amounts of money (or any amount of money).

I think it is very strange that dooglus is in the business of selling trust to scammers. How much interest did you give him for that loan? IMO someone on default trust should not be selling trust and they should be removed once it is exposed they are selling trust. Maybe it is that dooglus has no ethical issues with exploiting sites with vulnerabilities/bugs in them. 

The point is that the current trust system has made it much more difficult for someone to come to the conclusion that maidak should be trusted with large amounts of money.

BTW maidak did not take out any kind of loan. He took bitcoin and agreed to give his trading partners a similar amount of fiat back plus or minus some percentage (his commission for buying the bitcoin), however he did not follow through on his end of the deal. It could not be any more clear that he stole money from the two people in question.
$username, candystripes, you, Woodcollector, DaDice just to name a few. They all have either farmed trust, fought for a weaker trust system or both. All are scammers, some were exposed later in their crusade then others.
The suggestion of how to "fix" the implementation of the trust system would certainly weaken the trust system, this is without any doubt. As I documented above, the people making these arguments are scammers, without exception. Even maidak was asking for his trust rating to be returned to normal so he can trade to earn enough to repay the people he stole from. When this didn't happen he tried to trade with people by bumping his currency exchange thread once, but he was really never active after that

BTW - it is very difficult to make an on-topic reply to your off-topic posts. I am not an expert on the posting etiquette on this forum, but on other forums it might be more appropriate to post your comments that are off topic in a more appropriate thread.

Kind Regards
Panthers52   

Actually, I made several posts about this kind of trust-rangering previous to my "incident" (where, by "incident" you mean a particular trust-ranger attempting a character assasination attack with several alts and threats and all kinds of nasty behavior).  Anyway, if you want to make such a statement, it's important to get the facts straight.  I was complaining about the trust-rangers long before QS attacked me.  Vod and I were able to have several discussions about it which didn't escalate to name-calling or false accusations, or anything else.  I think it's important for you to try to maintain that here.  I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with your ideas.  Saying that "this makes me just like techshare" is indeed a fallacious logic, a red herring. I don't see what techshare has to do with my ideas and I don't appreciate you attempting to discredit me by (false) association with somene who's not in this conversation.


So how else are people supposed to decide who they can and can't deal with? If it wasn't for the feedback system nobody would have anything to help them decide who can be trusted with what.


FTFY.