Topic: Questions for CanaryInTheMine - page 2. (Read 4980 times)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full


He added them to his list.

So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. 

Seems like philipma1957 has done the same thing.

46 trusted feedback, 3 untrusted feedback, give me a break 

Just for the record, I was just cross posting the threads because it seemed relavent to the discussion and hadn't been mentioned. I don't hold a position on that particular case (I haven't read it properly).

The holiday period is over so there should be some solution now.

CanaryInTheMine has a lot of complaints and I am surprised he is still on the depth 1. He has also shown earlier that in the Mabsark case that he is willing to remove others from his trust list if he feels that is bringing his place in the list in question.

would be great if some one did something about this.

if nothing else changes then I think Canary should at least take the time to prune his trust list. I am sure he is a busy guy and with so many people under his trust list, he does not have the time to keep tabs on each and every one. There are definitely a good number of people under Canary's trust list who should not be deemed "trustworthy" anymore. Pruning the trust list of members gone bad is the least Canary can do for the community. I have no further comment on anything else that has taken place on this thread other than the fact that the points brought up about the trust system is /slightly/ flawed.

Probably another example as to why Canary should prune his trust list. There is no reason for someone to be on default trust list if they at least at one point have been an active trader and/or have called out a lot of scams

A very professional response from the staff as usual. No one is forcing you to read my posts, you do an awful lot of crying about my posts for someone accusing me of being butthurt. I already explained how throwing me under a bus while allowing others to actually abuse the system heavily benefits staff. It draws attention away from the fact that this enforcement is for some users but not others and makes it appear as if you actually enforce these standards when enforcement is selective at best, all the while protecting your paychecks. You can make all the personal attacks against me you like, all it will do is demonstrate your lack of restraint and self control. You can call what I did an "abuse" all day, but I never tried to obfuscate what I did, and frankly I probably would have been better off lying to your faces and saying I thought Armis was a scammer, because that seems to be your only standard. I guess that is my fault for expecting a reasonable response from staff to a single complaint over 3 years while other users on the default trust have vast collections of complaints that go ignored by staff.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/default-trust-member-was-trying-to-extort-from-me-left-negative-feedback-904408 Probably another case to review

sent you a pm

Yawn more irony and hypocrisy. I'm tired of your whining and responding to the same old tired bs. The biggest hypocrisy here is from you and you were fine abusing the system when it suited you but are now just inventing up conspiracy to suit your argument like every child who gets told off here for something that is their own wrongdoing. You abused the system to get your own way on your own terms. How did removing you from the trust protect the staff or their financial interests? It seems you were trying to protect yours by the abuse.



I suggest you use some of that and get over it.

There is no irony, only hypocrisy from the staff  protecting the only thing they are concerned about, their paycheck. If you didn't involve yourself he would have ceased his abuse and I would have deleted my negative. You gave him the impression you would some how remove my trust rating so he had ZERO INCENTIVE to set things right because he thought he was getting what he wanted any way. Now he is stuck red, and I am off the default trust list all because disinterested 3rd parties decided that my work is some how attributable to them and they can take it away as if they granted it. The ONLY PURPOSE of the default trust for those on paid staff, is to keep their paychecks coming. Users having a fair place to leave ratings for abusive individuals is a long second, and why the staff should NOT have the power to moderate trust IN ANY WAY.

They too have financial interests here, and if any person threatens their financial interests here they can use the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM to punish opponents or competitors. Tell me some more about how my single negative trust rating left for harassment some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. Furthermore users like Canary and VOD are given a free pass to whore out and abuse the trust system as they please because they were put there by STAFF, and they obey commands from their dictator Theymos & company. This isn't a distributed trust system, it is a TRUST DICTATORSHIP, and you follow the commands of the glorious leader, or you are out. It has nothing to do with reputability and everything to do with protecting the personal financial interests of the staff & friends. You accuse me of abusing the trust system for leaving one negative against someone who repeatedly harassed and slandered me, yet you see no problem at all with using the ENTIRE TRUST SYSTEM ITSELF as a cudgel against honest traders to force them to obey your dictates. Please excuse me if your sense of humor is lost on me.

Tomato is referring to Canary adding many people to his trust list when it would really only be appropriate to leave positive trust feedback.

I have previously thought he is trustworthy but no longer do so after what has been uncovered in the 3 threads about him that are currently active in meta.   

The irony. You ab/used the feedback system this way by leaving negative feedback in an attempt to get someone to remove theirs against you and leave you alone. It seems you don't mind abusing it so long as it's not done to you.

I think they are referring to him adding so many people into his trust list (giving them depth 2 default trust). Not so much his feedback left for trades and group buys. Personally I trust him, but he does add by far the most people into lvl 2 trust.

If the trust list is used as leverage to force someone to change a trust rating against their will, is there a difference?

I think some people are confusing the Trust list with a Trust feedback rating.

I've done some research. Other people with no connection to AM have done some research. We all came to our own conclusions that these are almost certainly scams. There are quite a few cloud mining services, the few I left negative feedback on are simply the worst of the worst.

Since you like the way Puppet does things, you might like to hear what he had to say on the matter:


I've told all of these services that I'd remove the feedback if they provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. If they had any hashing power, they would quite easily be able to do that. This is not just an AM against the competition thing:




That's 4 respected members of the community who agree and have no obvious affiliation with AM and I know Puppet and Raskul have stated that they don't have any. I think most people with a reasonable amount of experience with bitcoin mining would agree that the services Puppet listed as legit are legit, the ones he's listed as a ponzi are most likely a ponzi, and the ones in between are questionable to various degrees. It's better to warn people about these services before they get ripped off rather than waiting till afterwards then rubbing their noses in it. If the services are legitimate they can easily prove that. They refuse to do.

too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so?
not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"
speaking of puppet i like the way he do things really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk

Regards,
Erwin