Topic: nutildah got red trust recent hours. Is the red trust fairly for him? - page 4. (Read 1538 times)

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for you to tell me why you personally think that rating is not valid.

It depends on whose guidelines you want to go by. These seem to be the generally accepted standards:


I would like to point to items in this last section, which I believe in principle you are in agreement with. Please note that none of the trust left by me in the past 4 years falls into this section.

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Promoting altcoins.
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*

These 4 items all pertain to iCEBREAKER's feedback. About the news of Monero being excluded from Poloniex, it was true at the time, but obviously they had a change of heart and decided to continue listing it. I also pointed this out in the referenced thread. About Dash being a "scam," that is an extremely subjective viewpoint at best. Over the years, the markets have dictated that it is not a scam, and it has real world utility, as I admit Monero does as well. I just did not care for the way that the Monero supporters went about promoting their project, and I still don't, but its not worth leaving somebody a red trust over. (For example, it would never occur to me to red trust FluffyPony or Smooth or any of those guys).

OK, so there you have it.

I am not implying anything. I repeatedly stated I am open to reconsidering iCEBREAKERs inclusion on my list if you can simply explain to me why you think his rating is not valid. That's it. You haven't done that, you just told me your side of the narrative without actually answering my question.

"Nudilah is a Dash shill who apologies for Evan's massive Instamine (see his buttkissing Trust entry) and spreads FAKE NEWS about competing projects (see Reference link).
Nudilah also viciously attacks the motivations of people questioning multi-year delay of Dash's previously announced i2p and Masternode Blinding features. "

Explain to me what makes this rating invalid please.

Xcoin was launched quite a while ago. Regardless of whatever caused the "instamine," whether it was intentional or not, how could Duffield have known at the time that his coin would go on to have the success that it did? Literally thousands of other altcoins have come and gone since then, but his remained, because it was novel, inventive, and it worked. My trust on Duffield was left to counter iCEBREAKER's (as stated): clearly Evan created something useful that went on to be immensely successful.

That, combined with my particular distaste for Monero, is what led iCEBREAKER to leave his negative trust on me. He went out of his way to dig up a post from last April (almost a year ago now) to find a reason to neg trust me. The amount of trolling he has done against Dash over the years is simply insane.

BTW I hold ZERO Dash, just respect for its developer. If that's worth leaving somebody red trust over, and TECSHARE considers it a valid reason, then so be it. By keeping iCEBREAKER on his list, he's implying its a valid reason to him. Obviously I'm not changing any minds here, more just explaining myself to those willing to entertain rational thoughts.

I traded Dash back when it was Darkcoin quite a bit. I had a laptop containing about 63 Dash that was stolen out of my apartment in 2016. Lost about $20k worth of crypto that night. I had .dat backups on a USB stick, which I unwittingly kept in the laptop case, which was also stolen.

Here is my Dash address, you can see exactly the last time I moved any Dash:

Xhrj1twMEYYavovibiuzpYTvPoz7fGxQmD

However, suchmoon is already an observable hypocrite. This is regardless of which standards we adopt because she has observable double standards. Those are the only standards she wants to be able to enforce selectively.

xcoin aka darkcoin aka dash is a proven scam. The dev even offered a 2,000,000 million coin (reaching value of 1000 bucks each) to make up for the scam launch and the subsequent slashing of the minting to magnify that captive instamine after promising it was a fair launch AFTER much battling and lying from their crowd that it was all a bunch of shit and the launch was fair and there was no captive instamine.

Lauda is actually a scammer. Lauda claimed he was on the launch and that there was no instamine so he knew that for SURE. He lied for financial gain which is what scammers do...they lie for financial gain.

Pharmacist, lauda, nutildah all had their noses in on that scam and were all protecting and praising it or lying the launch was fair and no premine. I think suchmoon was possibly a big dash holder too. Does not mind profiting from a scam perhaps.

So suchmoon red trusts persons because she believes the projects they are supporting may "possibly" be a scam.

Then suchmoon goes and includes on his trust list these same liars, scam supporters, trust abusers and proven greedy sneaky racist trolling sig spamming puppets  and does not red trust them does she?. Now she is crying about one of them getting red trust.

Now she is claiming hypocrisy and talking about "standards"?  Which ever standards you adopt you can't get out of having observable DOUBLE standards. Subjectivity can excuse most devious scheming ... but treating identical situations COMPLETELY differently demonstrates what sort of person she is. Dirt.

It is pointless to try and debate with these fools because they already know that what I say is true, but will never admit it. They do not need to, their actions demonstrate clearly how they are abusing the systems of control that they have been allowed to entrench themselves in.

Of course not. Why would it be relevant that you all run around like one unit together forming the perfect brown nosing human centipede all backing each other up no matter what and including each other, and excluding the members they also choose to target. You have a lot of nerve pointing at me and crying to do as you say not as you do.

You and the people you support run around negative rating people based on suspicion, which is exactly the standard iCEBREAKER is operating upon. You scream about the injustice when it applies to you and yours but I am the hypocrite for not removing him because he doesn't meet the standards I would like exactly? If you keep stretching like this you are going to snap, be careful. Feel free to start a separate thread in reputation about my supposed behavior you find objectionable and I would be happy to discuss it. Of course you won't though because this is all just desperately crafted sophistry to try to cover for one of the members of your brown nosing human centipede of a trust mob.

I'd be honored if I could call nutildah my friend, but that's not relevant here. Yes, I think you're being a hypocrite, but also yes, you can do this to whomever you like. I don't need theymos to set a standard to my liking. I can simply exclude you. I'm a little disappointed that some people seem to be including you because of things you say and not the things you do, so it's important to point those differences out.


Really? Do I red-trust people for making fun of my favorite shitcoin "every day dozens of times a day"? Well, sounds like you should include me in your trust list then... or at least have a look at the dictionary. Hypocrisy doesn't stop being hypocrisy because "others do it too", even if that were true. Your hypocrisy is entirely about your words and your behavior.

I want to know why YOU think this rating is invalid. See how that works? Of course you can't answer that because you know if you do your own actions will then be revealed to be hypocritical BY YOUR OWN WORDS. Run along now sweet summer child.





The constant projection you people partake in would be hilarious if it wasn't so destructive to this community. I brought up democracy because it is the most similar existing governmental system to what we have here, except for the informed populace and accountable representatives part. Good try at a smear though bringing up politicians to tie me with visceral emotional sensations in lieu of a logical argument.

I do, do what I preach. I didn't leave this rating iCEBREAKER did. Funny this whole time both of you are screaming hypocrisy at me while you yourselves are A-OK wit this standard every other time it is not you or your friends. I am holding you to your own standards then you turn around and call me the hypocrite for not removing some one for doing what you do every day dozens of times a day. You have no principles, and your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding is quite hilarious to me.

Yeah... no. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Didn't you compare DT to democracy recently? Perhaps you should do what some politicians do when caught in an obviously blatant hypocrisy.

BTW your standards are a subset of the current guidelines so there is really no reason for you to not do what you preach.


Don't be melodramatic. I'm sure someone agrees with you on those standards. Otherwise you'd be really stupid to push for them if neither yourself nor anyone else is willing to follow them.

Perhaps you should try leading by example.

Its extremely hypocritical of you because it goes against your entire philosophy when it comes to trust ratings.

You know exactly why his rating is invalid.

But you're not going to change anything; you never were. However, if you did, it would probably work to your benefit. Earlier today you were shown to have trusted two known scammers -- your judgment is highly suspect.

I should have known better than to fall for your trolling attempt. I won't be responding to you here any more.

As evidenced by your continual frothing mouthed attacks any time I try to argue for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Also your willingness to support people who do exactly what was done to you to others on a daily basis by the dozen. If you yourself do not endorse such principles I am not sure why you also get to demand protection by them as you continue to poo poo at the standard.

I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.

It would be like North Korea saying hey USA, we will disarm our nukes, but only if you do it first ok? Oh China and Russia, they are going to keep theirs for now don't worry about them. In essence you are demanding those I associate with all keep a standard that is not yet a standard, which is asinine. If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.

Our main disagreement stems from your inability to understand that "a body that enforces" already exists, only they operate on completely arbitrary standards. I don't know where you get the idea some new body of people will need to be assembled. People are VERY prone to subjectivity. That is why we are badly in need of some structure from Theymos, such as issuing the notice he prefers we operate with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am advocating all the same people now present evidence to support their negative rating before doing so. That's pretty much it. The rest is your pure imagination.

You are welcome, my friend.
I known you due to we are in the same campaign, nothing more.
Moreover, I admired you so much due to your earned merits. That's why I created the topic.
Back and forth red trust tagging should never be used.
It is trust abusement, even trust is not moderated in the forum.

Why complaining? you promoted and supported a proven scam. You are by suchmoons definition a scammer and need a tag?

Seems hypocritical to moan about it. Suck it up, your tag is more deserving than most. 
I think sticking up for liars and trust abusers is something now in your history and most will likely view you as untrustworthy once we get these teething issues sorted and the swamp drained.

I think more snakes will get some red as time progresses. Let's see how it all works out and how much you all favour the system when all your untrustworthy actions are slathered up in some nice red paint. Then we will see who wants proof of scam before getting the scam tag.

As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.


... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.

Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.

That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.

I thought your view on trust was that it should be reserved for trade-oriented issues. Leaving trust feedback for opinions was something you were thoroughly against. iCEBREAKER also left a negative trust for Evan Duffield, the developer of DASH, which I think renders his judgment pretty unsound. But that's just my personal opinion. I also have a negative trust left by somebody who neg trusted Vitalik Buterin. Maybe I can attract someone who neg trusts Satoshi next.

Since nutildah considers the situation resolved, I suppose I will be leaving my trust list as it stands. Thanks for the reply.

Thanks tranthidung for posting this. Hhampuz had a good point about not leaving "back and forth" trusts, so I won't do that going forward. The situation seems to be resolved. And thanks to everybody else for coming to my Reputation thread.

Your dedication to pursuing personal vendettas over building a trust list that serves the forum over your own personal interest has been duly noted. I just think it is sad you still harbor all this resentment over having your own behavior checked 4 years ago. Maybe you can regale us all with more tales about how I abused the trust system by leaving you a neutral rating over it.

He must have had a big change of heart then because was a big xmr fan when i noticed him posting in prior years.

Funny (if true) same happened with lauda and spotty. I intially thought they had switched accounts when I caught up with them again years later in a few debates. Lauda was going through a good period where it seemed to be almost a reasonable human being and even helpful.