Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 17. (Read 11909 times)

well I think BTC is going to go down in the next few months so if I cash out now, my USD will be able to buy more BTC.

that one makes me laugh.. serious investors get ignored when they see things in a different light than our DT-1 memeber og nasty..

oh and I am still yet to bring to light the details of the GLBSE fiasco.. this will be very interesting reading for those "not informed" of how OG likes to conduct business.. as the Treasurer of this forum and DT-1.. its shady as hell.


Edit..


that is because you are retarded.. go sit on a USD forum if you want to earn USD... the USD is the worst shitcoin in existence all I want is more BTC...

I don't know about you TMAN but I measure my profits in the good old american dollar.

But my altcoins this week tanked in value against bitcoin, but actually rose in profit in terms of USD because of that USD growth I am able to buy some stuff

You've been already silenced, nothing to see here. It must have been me who told you this, right? /s

some more brilliant moves by a member of DT-1 and the forum treasurer... what skills much wow.. good invest... might as well be a doge forum with some of these moves..


hitting out against Blazed... another DT-1.. and still loving the BFL gear?


but power is so so important as we all know OG pays power out of his own pocket..


ohh and a bit of Quantative Easing.. he does sound like a banker..


or should I say wanker?

Yeah, but you know as well as anyone that DT1 is different from DT2, and hypothetically if Theymos wanted to take someone from DT2 and put them on DT1, then he could do that. 

Sure, he might get some pushback from within the ranks, but theoretically it is within his discretion to add to DT1 or subtract from DT1, if he concluded that it would serve his purpose(s) or benefit him more than it cost him.

I am going to quote this for future reference

Let me guess, you're counting blackmailers such as this one:
Totally-not-biased.

Cases like these make it trivially obvious that the stats are easily manipulated (re: DeepOnion trust farming shills).

The dump is rather funny, either people who got busted for X, you and your alts (+-some minor disputes).

Og is great with words, and aligning a situation to his own personal goals.

with some classic posting like -


I really cannot understand how this man is default trust.. yet people like Zepher and Lauda get kicked off it..

I don't stand to directly benefit from Lauda being removed from the DT network. I don't deal in forum accounts anymore because prices have fallen so much that it isn't worth the time/investment anymore, and also because I really don't have the time anymore. Although I don't think dealing in accounts is wrong provided there are willing participants to the transaction. Also, stomping out these traders will do nothing other than create a false sense of security when one slips through the cracks.

I will fight for what I believe is right, even if it is difficult or if I do not see immediate results. You laid out pretty well the majority of my concerns about Lauda in your post. My concerns about Lauda pre-date him being anywhere near the DefaultTrust network, and more or less started in a thread in which I believe he acted inappropriately, I said something publicly about my concerns, I received negative feedback from him as retaliation for posting my concerns, and he eventually edited his post to address my concerns and removed the negative after de-escalating the situation via PM, and I removed my public concerns. I then let it be, and I don't remember what got lauda back on my radar after that incident, although he was back on my radar well before he was added to blazed's trust list. You can claim "hidden 'skin in the game' " if you want, however the timeline simply does not support that.

Anyway, back to the dealing in accounts issue, as I mentioned, I think the leaving negative ratings for these trades is counterintuitive, and generally goes against my mostly libertarian beliefs. My biggest concern about lauda personally leaving negative ratings for those who deal in accounts is that he almost certainly (it would be reasonable to conclude) dealt in accounts in the past. There is an account that lauda has admitted to owning/controlling, that is connected via blockchain evidence, that on multiple occasions inquired about purchasing accounts, including making one inquiry for 10 accounts. Lauda also took the time to delete over 3,000 posts this account posted, which must be done one at a time, which is also a fairly good indication that he was trying to hide something. Although I do not have evidence (that I am aware of), I think there is a decent possibility that lauda continues to deal in accounts today.

I have posted with exactly two accounts in this thread, the other account was really just screwing around, and I don't think was backing my arguments.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public. In the US court system, the accused will first either plead guilty or not guilty before they are tried, and get to see evidence against them, and I do not see any other reason why I would be obligated to allow him to see evidence against him before he makes his position on this clear. This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.
You would be pretty hard pressed to find someone who is unhappy with the outcome of a trade I was involved in, which is far from getting scammed. Although there may be one or two who claim to be, however I would argue their concerns are not legitimate.


I am sorry, but this is nothing more than a refusal to take personal responsibility for your actions. If you are unwilling to endorse, and risk your reputation on lauda's actions and ratings, then you should immidiately remove him from your trust list. The trust system is designed to rely upon the reputations and judgment of those directly on your trust list to not only give ratings you agree with but also to have a trust list that contains those with good reputations.

Non-withstanding the above, what you say is not even true. The most recent dump of the global trust list has 96 people explicitly excluding lauda from their trust lists, and 48 explicitly including lauda on their trust list. That is twice as many people excluding him as are including him. Further, there are 45 people who have excluded lauda from their trust list who have a UID equal to or less than mine (45 accounts that are old enough to be legendary have explicitly excluded lauda), while I estimate 24 accounts have explicitly added lauda to their trust list with a UID less than mine. I would also point out that there are a large number of accounts with lauda on their trust list that are very low the trust list dump.

'Nastyfans' is neither here nor there. It's just like a shell company. It could easily be made to appear to make a profit. There's nothing there but smoke and mirrors. A husk.

OgNasty hides behind this obfuscation because he lost his investors hundred of bitcoins. He should publish accounts in bitcoin terms and make his investors whole accordingly.

He doesn't seem to scam yet in matters where he can't muddy the waters such as straightforward escrows and holding theymos' (that other expert financier) dick er i mean the forum funds.

Surely, as far as I understand, Theymos is the owner of the forum, so he has full and complete discretion regarding how to set up the Trust system and who to place as DT1s.  Sure, there could be some ways that Theymos could change the DT system around or tweak it, but to a certain extent there is likely some locking in of systems that cannot be transitioned in and out at the drop of a hat.

I agree that when you are dealing with holding the money of other people, then there are greater responsibilities than dealing with your own, and surely we are more free to take greater risks with our own money than we are with the money of others.  

I doubt that Theymos would leave OG with that much forum funds if he thought that OG was not aware or capable of carrying out reasonable and appropriate fiduciary responsibilities or if he thought that there may be a more prudent way to spread out the risk or to lessen some possible single points of failures, if that is actually an issue, like you assert.

I have made plenty of monumental fuck ups in the past, the difference is they have been using my own BTC/£/$... one thing that og seems to have a knack of doing is the same but with others funds..

its why  I cannot understand the treasurer role.. and DT... default trust for someone who couldn't honor a simple loan agreement?



what the hell does that have to do with anything? people need to buy into this organisation in BTC and the costs of that buy in has reduced consistently over time.. just because you donate your time/efforts does not mean that it has any value...

anyone who has a financial education would not invest funds with you for a BTC return...

anyway princess I thought you were ignoring me...

NastyMining has no costs as everything is provided through donations from yours truly. It only produces profits. Anyone who says differently doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s like saying that Apple isn’t profitable because their dividend is only 1.5%. It’s an unbelievably ignorant stance that nobody with any sort of financial education, investment experience, or business management skills could possibly have.

Almost as ignorant as saying I didn’t honor a loan agreement because it was restructured at the lender’s request to give them an accelerated payback and ownership stake.

TMAN forgets to mention that what BTC was worth like what,, 15$ for 1 bitcoin?

and that they got a 80% refund in USD if memory serves me right

TMAN is like an political party says the facts but leaves out key details to sway the public

I just wanted to get a little bit of a better idea regarding your reference in the earlier post.  So thanks for that.

I don't really know any details of what you describe beyond what you have already said, so I don't have any independent reference or judgement about that situation, but sure just going from your description of what happened those kinds of losses could reasonably be considered as monumental fuckups or some similar level of characterization.

show me some stats that prove that nasty mining has returned a BTC profit in the last 3 years. I would love to be proved wrong.. if you quote anything in USD you will go on ignore

I am aware that you have made that exact sentence at least 3 times that I can recall,

nastymining is profitable and you just don't like it

my personal dislike of him has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of his poor business skills.

are you not aware that he borrowed 400BTC from the community, insisted on going "all in" on BFL gear even when he was advised not to - then had to re structure loans that ended up leaving people over 200BTC out of pocket?

I disagree with you their TMAN,

OG is hands down the best person on this fourm, 100% honest, runs a great thing called nastymining.

You just don't like him and have a personal vendetta against him