Topic: Questions for CanaryInTheMine - page 3. (Read 4980 times)

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers.

Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!"

Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback.


On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research.

66% most of them are on default trust list because of him alone

I have to agree with the whole AM thing..all the investors are bashing anything not AM/AMHash. It seems like Canary adds a ridiculous amount of people to his trust network. I wonder what % of all depth 2 trusted people come from his list?

this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put 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"

this is much much better than leaving a negative feedback that pissed people of

well just my opinion tho

Regards,
Erwin

Looking at this statement again, and looking at the trust feedback you left for Mabsark, I see a big problem here. You are 100% correct that potential scammers will be stopped. However just because someone is a potential scammer does not mean they are actually scamming or actually trying to scam.

What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.

I would also ask you what percentage of your trust feedback is not on anyone else's trust list that is on default trust? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%? I would ask the same about friedcat

I warned you all that TRUST MODERATION IS A FAILED POLICY that will result in this community being torn apart from the inside out.

See how fast you go from the one judging to the one being judged Canary? Enjoy your personal inquisition.

If I may ask, why was i removed from your list then? I did no scam, I don't run any trading here all I did is gave negative trust to someone I think deserves it. Then you removed me from your trust list and you give positive trust rating to that same person. Don't say it's because  of my post in off topic thread as this was irrelevant comment.

Thank you

No this is applicable unless they do the above. For example CanaryInTheMine's trust rating will not be affected by anyone that is on his trust list and no one else's. If you were to receive 20 positive trust ratings, all by people who are on CanaryInTheMine's trust list and no one else's then my trust score would not turn green until you received a positive trust rating from someone who is on someone besides CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

This isn't really applicable as many persons don't add people who are in Default Trust list to their trust list unless they're making a custom one with depth 0.

   ~~MZ~~

From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work:

As I said, this is not a problem on your end, and neither I am accusing that CanaryInTheMine deliberately tried to improve his rating. I was pointing out a possible mode of abuse of the trust system.

Your right it is only one additional point. But this is also probably not the first time something like this has happened.

The group buy issue is probably having to do with the fact that people who participated in his group buys have generally left him positive feedback (because they had a positive trading experience).

It is only a +1 point , come on guys. I've left him a positive feedback only because I trust him.  I've left the feedback after not before .

*and I also want to add :

I've never participate to a groupBuy managed by CanaryInTheMine , so the problem doesn't exist.

This. A flaw in the system would be that one in the DefaultTrust list could essentially increase his own trust by adding people that gave him trust outside of the list to his own trust list.

The flaw is that by adding you to default list he increased his own trust rating.

This has nothing to do with you.

The problem is not with you. The problem is that he responded to you leaving him positive trust by adding you to his trust list. This made it so his trust rating was increased.

Can you honestly say that he would have added you to his trust list if you expressed reservations about him, havelock or ASICminer?

It is not a flaw , I think we can send also a feedback without complete a deal.



Are you serious ? All this story only for a trust feedback to a reputable user ?

I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust.

If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam

I was pointing out a possible flaw in the current system.
Did he add you after or before you left the feedback?

What is the problem if I trust him ? I've left him the feedback only because he's an honest person.