Topic: Re: BitcoinGirl.Club: How a condescending attitude equates to trust exclusion (Read 1349 times)

Let's move the discussion to a new topic with the investigation I was conducting for the last a week. It needs the new topic to be visible for many and to find the original truth. Please read the topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-you-know-enough-of-what-you-have-been-told-5495227

I am locking the thread now.

Buddy, is this not what you're talking about by any chance?

The OP must be running out of people to Troll - I'm the latest to have been spammed with their rambling blue highlighted navel gazing.

As to one of your questions concerning icopress contacting me - not since I blocked them quite a while ago when they tried to manipulate the DT rankings.

Yes, I know about that and Jolly only comes to discussions where many members support him, or come to advise someone, without realizing the mistake he made.

I've tried to argue with him several times, but he always avoids it and doesn't want to admit his mistake. Members who don't want to admit their mistakes are the worst, that's what I know

I have tried to argue with him in a healthy way, but he doesn't respond well so I need to use harsher methods and make many people aware that Jolly is too selfish. I acknowledge you and your wise views, you are the best one in this forum

Sometimes users know that it's a waste of time to respond to certain people.  There are some that like to engage in the arguments and those that don't want to argue unless they are arguing a point.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing on deaf ears in most cases.

Very funny... 

Do you think the response is important? So you are giving OP advice on how to respond to yahoo62278? Then what do you do? you created a locked thread, you don't dare to argue with me in the thread I created. You always talk nonsense and are an arrogant braggart

People are free to not take a person's advice no matter if the advice is good or bad. I'm ok with it.

Well, unfortunately your advice fell on deaf ears and it did not even warrant a response by the OP. That degree of arrogance is precisely what members see on a regular basis and it alienates them. Sometimes you honestly wonder why bother posting with care and consideration with advice when those that you reach out to simply ignore you.

From BitcoinGirl.Club to "this" member, interesting 😂



I hope the members who know me closely can now keep this question about "who is the owner of the account" in the side bench, I am the same f**ker who is f**king all these bitches for years LOL 😘

/*edited*/

Interesting little observation.
There was some issue with his account some time ago, it was claimed to be hacked or something, and I see a lot of password changes.
He didn't reply anything to your post but it would be interesting to hear why this member changed his posting habits, if he is in fact the same owner.

PS
Without revealing anything, I can only say that BitcoinGirl.Club contacted me few days ago and asked if I received any message from icopress telling me to distrust him.
He also showed me some half edited and censored screenshots that I never asked to see, so I can't say what really happened.
One thing I know for sure, this forum is full of snitches  

Lol 

Don't you have any good discussion material? you always repeat the same thing. Similarity? Come on, show me where my posts are located that are similar to komisariatku

But I'm sure you can't prove it, and of course this is your 34th bullshit. I challenge you to find my posting habits the same as komisariatku. just prove it, if you can't then you are just a braggart.

If you thought I would abandon my account because I couldn't join the campaign, you were wrong. I will always be here, watching your ridiculous behavior 

@BitcoinGirl.Club you cannot prove that icopress sent a mass pm to participants and asked them to ~ you, so trying to argue that would be pointless really. I cannot say he did or didn't, have always had pretty fair dealings with icopress.

Everyone has shocked me that is involved by the fact that not one has given a negative, so at least the trust system isn't being abused. As you know, anyone can distrust you for any reason. It's not illegal. Some of your thoughts on the whole situation may or may not be correct, but without concrete proof, you're kinda pissin up a rope. You're free to continue this and see who's mind you can change, but at the moment it would seem you are wasting your breathe. I would consider locking it and revisiting if you come across proof of your feelings.

His was a lost cause a long time ago. Do not waste your time engaging with him (and especially not by advising him).

This is the 44th post in this thread but an interesting statistic is that 9 posts in this thread (equates to over 20%) were made by the komisariatku/PytagoraZ account farming puppeteer. Those are very interesting statistics.

I see some similarities between the komisariatku/PytagoraZ account farming troll and another account that ended up getting multiple tags therefore ended by giving up on that account. I hope the sooner the other accounts operated by the komisariatku/PytagoraZ account farming troll are accidentally revealed by him and receive tags as a response, the better.

^ You’re reaching.

Who thinks Jambler is less trustworthy because they could be pretending not to be a mixer, while they could actually be, just to avoid a forum ban? That makes no sense to me.

Let’s say: the USA is going after VPNs, we all like them, one suddenly rewords his website to pretend they are not a VPN so they keep working. Suddenly we think the VPN provider is bad? You are acting like a fed.

Scamming? Reputation damage.
(Supposedly) Avoiding a single man’s decision to ban mixers? Don’t care.

I think it needs a little clear explanation. Let us consider each feedback individually for each accounts.

First icopress.
From January 1st the idea are "Mixers are ban".  But to avoid the ban, the team was giving all their focus to call it a software provider [not a software provider at all though, I noticed somewhere they even changed some texts of their website to make it look like a software provider]. All mixing process were done in their end but because they did not have a front-end under their own domain they were calling the product as not a mixer.

Before https://web.archive.org/web/20230331054656/https://[banned mixer]/

Now

Before https://web.archive.org/web/20230331054656/https://[banned mixer]/


Now


Let's be more close.
Snap on November 15th 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231115115459/https://[banned mixer]/ [replace "[banned mixer]" use "JamblerDOTio" DOT=. in the URL]
Theymos posted Mixers will be banned from January 1st.
Snap on December 7th 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20231207030249/https://[banned mixer]/

On the other hand can we accept it with a guarantee that these front-ends, those they are calling partners are not from the Jambler team itself? Jambler team itself can easily finance the marketing and hosting expense. All it needs to buy a domain, install the PHP code and create a different name to launch front-ends to accept coin under different domain names. The core is always same, pointing to one central database. What confused me a lot that out of 5% plus 0.0007 BTC (network fee), Jambler is taking 3% plus 0.0007 BTC (network fee), the partner was taking even less than 2%. Who in their logical business mind will spend so much money to give majority share to the API provider and is going to keep less for themselves? Visit clickbank, the biggest affiliate network, you will find referral commissions are even 90%, the product provider is taking even less than 10%. It's because overtime from many referrals the product owner eventually make the bigger money than the referrals

By doing all these Jambler team wanted to avoid the rule that was implemented to avoid mixers on the forum. A scam does not always have to be with the cash/digital money. When someone have an idea and someone else stole it then this stealing is also a scam. Jambler stole "Mixers ban" from the forum and continued their marketing in the forum for three more months.

Given that I am also in the campaign managed by icopress, so maybe I can be a part of this drama, I also confirm that I have not received any similar request through PM to exclude someone from the trust list.
What I can confirm is that I received a PM from him earlier, but it was exclusively related to the transfer to another campaign when the previous one (Wasabi) ended. I saw it as taking care of campaigns and participants, which is certainly respectable

You need to change to UID to identify a user.  Some idiots like Tradefortress used to play around with usernames to break BPIP.

Sorry about that. A username change messed up my script, and needed manual attention. But it's Kingsday here, so we had plans with the kids. I wiped the "damaged" directory to prevent people from linking to it.

A new update is running now, this link should work when it's done: loyce.club/trust/2024-04-27_Sat_16.29h/662330.html.
Update: it's done.

That's the thing: theymos' trust data dumps (unlike his Merit data dumps) use usernames.

we all value privacy and most of us are against banning mixers, but is the reason for not trusting @BitcoinGirl.Club because he made it clear that @jambler was a mixer? Or did I miss something?

I wanted to check latest updated list ----> http://loyce.club/trust/2024-04-27_Sat_05.07h/662330.html  but I get (sorry, that page is missing.) @LoyceV you need to make some updates.

@BitcoinGirl.Club you need to check the trust list of accounts that distrusted you. If they have a changing distrust list, there is no need to ask them, and if it is them first-timer, it is better to ask them in PM. Depending on their reasons, you can decide to lock topic or not.

Briefly:

 - I still trust @BitcoinGirl.Club, and if there is a reason not to trust him, it is best to list it below so I can remove him.
 - You should not distrust @BitcoinGirl.Club because he made it clear that jambler is a mixer.
 - I still trust @icopress and I do not see that he forced others to distrust @BitcoinGirl.Club.
 - I didn't like the way @icopress explained^[1] what happened.

[1]

Were you around before and when the hack happened?  

Feels like it was a long time ago. I remember the saga.

I wouldn't wanna make this look too intrusive but, Bitcoingirl's attitude changed after the major hack recovery. Not in a bad way, but it seems like she became a bit rigorous... ain't gonna lie, sometimes I feel it's not the same person; mind you, you don't have to listen/believe me but that's just my thought.
I do alot of reading   which, is why I know basically all the sagas from the old times.

Edit: Aside the fact that you were a little bit dramatic during the whole mixer ban controversy, I haven't had any direct dealings with you and I don't have to hate you for whatever reasons others are..
Just like I said earlier, I had to dig deep into your history to have a better understanding of who you truly was.

I can't speak for the other participants, but in the PM I got from icopress, there was no talk about you in it.

Really? really an overreaction. But actually that's normal, because logically it's better to support icopress because they get campaigns from him.

@BitCoingirl.Club

Wouldn't come here if you did not tag me. I excluded you from my trust list because I don't consider you the same person I had dealings with in the past.

While you were still Pamoldar, you were one of the better posters in gambling and I enjoyed banter with you. I don't know if your account changed hands or if just real life changed both of us in a some way. But I don't feel like I am dealing with same person. I am not the one who likes to do research about stuff like that so my personal feelings along with some of your comments and recent trust ratings were enough for me to exclude you from my trust list. Recent events were trigger but not the cause of my action.

Shouldn't trust lists also be personal? This way it just leads to unnecessary drama. I am sure that was discussed in meta but I don't visit that part of the forum often. Also did not read anything but your last post here so I am sorry if I missed the point on something.

The neutral was not given to him but to icopress.

Has anyone noticed a neutral was also given to Jay Johanson too or no one directed there yet? No one is interested^[1]?

It was a blow for me. I was also surprised and felt something was not right, somewhere there is a synchronization.

Not all of those who excluded^[2] me were from the Jambler campaign [cygan, NeuroticFish, TryNinja, BlackHatCoiner], there were some from other campaigns [managed by icopress. Members are 1miau, paid2], someone who was impressed by icopress's work [apogio, a former merit cycling club youngest member], Timelord2067, jayce, Trofo and Hhampuz.

Hhampuz was odd. Last year, just before the Champions league to start I and him had massive argument about the main sponsor which he concluded with a neutral feedback and I concluded with not to join CL pool. The exclusion did not happen at that time but something thoughtful happened and he decided to exclude now with all these users. It's totally an odd timing.

It would be wrong not to think that all of these members were informed secretly [snitching, misguiding, using the poor relationship as Hhampuz-me] at the same day or week. Perhaps we have many other members who were informed secretly but not everyone thought it's right to response or decided to response later.

Not really, I don't spend the whole day on bitcointalk LOL. It was about shutting down my computer and went back to my real life.

^[1]LoyceV finally noticed LOL
^[2]Please don't think me wrong. I am not pissed [as dkbit98 thought I was, which was wrong again] by the actions from any of you except icopress. If there is a connection between all these then I am right to suspect icopress is the man who encouraged everyone to look at the feedback I left to him, created the essence to believe I am the culprit for Jambler's ban then suggested/applied a technique to manipulate the minds. Could I be wrong or you think icopress have someone to do the dirty job for him so that you never can imagine his involvement? I would like a precise answer from you.

There are some members who are diverting [perhaps it's not their intention] the essence of the thread. We know from experience that things end with nothing in these type of threads. So my responses will be limited but I will read your information with huge interest.

A note was taken. Thank you.

/*edited*/

It seems to me that by opening this thread and expressing his guesses about the trust change request, the OP may get even more tildes into his trust. Your demeanor of always going against the wind often shows the wrong side of you and not the person that you OP may not be. Nevertheless, an opinion is emerging. An attempt to prove what others supposedly do not see, taking a position above everyone else, speaks of youth, and adolescence, although yes, I know that you point out to everyone your registration date. But not everyone grows up when they become adults.
Why not resolve this issue initially in a PM, so as not to cause so much controversy from others?
But you won, what upsets you?

Yes, you always had bad taste in arguing. Can you explain how neutral tags become negative tags? A ridiculous statement made by a member with 7000 merits.

I think everyone already knows about my case, do I need to bump thread nutildah for you?


Look at your comments, just useless nonsense. If komisariatku had not told me not to comment there, I would have argued with you for your faulty logic.

Ignoring the unproven PM statement, I don't see what's wrong with asking users to change their Trust list. I've argued to exclude someone on several occasions, and if the arguments are convincing, that can work. As far as I know, the DefaultTrust system is supposed to work like this:

That being said, I was surprised by the number of Trust exclusions in a single week. I'm also surprised this caused so much drama: theymos made a decision, if you don't like that decision, blame theymos. But it's not going to change anything. I was also surprised by the neutral tags left by BitcoinGirl.Club, but since it's neutral, it shouldn't be a big deal. The wording is such that I can't take it seriously: "Scamming the idea of".... Wait what?! Followed by: "caused Jambler a reputational damage".... Wait a minute? Which one is it? The first one was scamming an idea, but the "idea scammer" got reputation damage and somehow that's a problem? Which one is it?

Nullum crimen sine lege.

Are you saying you'll leave Bitcointalk because someone was mean to you?

Please ignore this troll, this is textbook example of when to use magical ignore button in forum.
It is so stupid to assume that I am angry about anything for simply answering lies from other members (that also involved me).
I am not going to waste my time debating or answering anything with cheating liars, but everyone else can find more information about him in link below:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pytagoraz-komisariatku-are-alts-5489102

No, it's not about neg tag. But for your overreaction to the neutral tag you got.

Jollygood? Yes, he DT is the most abuse and has used unhealthy methods to destroy someone's reputation and it is inappropriate for such methods to be used. Someone needs to fight, if you don't dare, it's no problem. I am here and will fight to the death

I also don't drag you in drama, I respect you with the ninjastics you have, you are a member who contributes a lot to the forum

I’m not following you. Which negative tag was given to me?

I think I made myself very clear and you are trying to pull me into more unnecessary drama (your signature and personal text tells me you are/have turned into a drama-based member), which I’m not really interested… good luck.

Icopress got a neutral tag but you're the one who's angry? Come on, is this how you can continue to use in Icopress campaigns? Impressive way

Since when did the neutral tag become negative? Come on, you are a member of 7000 merits, don't be silly just to defend other people. @loyceV, I think you have explained the thread of trust systems very clearly, Looks like there are members who need to read it again


As a DT, replying because of a netral tag given to you is ridiculous, almost like abuse. So the DT power you have is only used for personal gain.

I'm surprised a member like you went that far because you defended icopress, maybe because he always includes you in his campaigns. I respected you before and did not expect you to do such a reckless thing

I didn't? It wasn't me.

Then why are you listing all the members who don't trust your judgment anymore, any why deceive people that icopress ordered everyone to do this?
That ''neutral'' post you wrote to him was actually negative in reality, as you directly blamed him that he mismanaged jambler campaign
It appears that you used special cover technique in your feedback written to him just to avoid critique from other members.
For someone who allegedly wanted more transparency and ''justice'' this was not so transparent.

If I had my trust list active again, just for this sentence I would not trust you anymore:

@Charles-Tim, @Charles-Tim I logged off earlier and have no plan to login again but after seeing the bold fonts from both of you I had to come back because I see where I went wrong so it needs to be cleared before it confuse people more. I realized I picked the wording which made wrong essence. I should have explained it better. The post is edited now [rephrased the whole line]. However, for the clear essence, the attached footnote was a good indicator where it said I was working hard past few days [...]

To avoid the confusion, icopress specifically did not ask anyone [at least in public, perhaps not even in PM he would dare] to distrust [~BitcoinGirl.Club] me. His whole attempt was to show everyone that I am the culprit and everyone is at a loss because of me.

I am not pissed with everyone but icopress. I am trying to understand what causes the massive blow? [1.] icopress influenced everyone [2.] two of my posts that caused all these blow [3.] the neutral feedbacks that I left for icopress and Jambler.

That is a lie and/or false assumption mixed with some paranoia.
Icopress never told me to distrust you or anyone else, and I am not some blind follower to do whatever someone else tells me to do.
You are obviously pissed that so many people distrusting you now, but nobody trusts snitches with their judgement even if they are speaking the truth, and this was not the case here  

You also got another member who now trusts you for ''good'' job:  
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/pytagoraz-3559721

You did not understand me at all. This is not about where people earn money from or not. This is also not anymore about a mixer should be banned or not. It is about this:



Icopress sent PM but it was about Hugewin campaign. He told me to put on the signature and avatar and nothing more. And also there is no where that icopress posted that we should distrust BitcoinGirl.Club. Which means he is only telling lies, alleging that icopress did something like that but which is not true.

It looks like icopress supporters are starting to arrive. So you blame bitcoingrils for banning jambler? Where do you and several members get their income from? even though it violates the forum rules?

So what trust should we give you? ignoring forum rules about mixers for personal gain. That should deserve a neutral or negative trust.

---

---

If drug trafficking is prohibited, who will receive the harshest punishment in court, are the drug dealers or drug factory owners? Jambler is a mixer factory 

I think I have missed a lot. Where did icopress openly told people to distrust you? Or you openly but indirectly told people to distrust you.

I was in Jambler campaign and icopress did not tell me to do anything. I do not believe icopress can even do anything like that. Because some users in Jambler distrust you, do not think icopress send them PM to distrust you. Some people do not think Jambler is a mixer and that you intentionally looked for ways to bring it down and you have succeeded in what could have been helpful for some members on this forum. It is like you alleged that icopress did something, but if it comes out that it is not true, what trust should we give you? That should deserve a neutral or negative trust.

It seems like you were so angry about getting a neutral tag that you went that far. Let's toast and Please, keep talking...

You don't need any more explanation to justify your standard. We are good as long as you are convinced that it was taken from an honest and not biased point of view.

To other members? I don't there there is any. Your case fell on my desk since I disagree with theymos decision to the ban mixers and was also on the jambler campaign, so it was hard for me to miss. Usually I don't read more than the first page of any drama, so it's unusual for me to take active positions.

I am good with that. I also like to think that you were honest.

I would like to see more examples you set by the standard you just described. 

I figured out I distrust your judgement, that's what it says in the screenshot.

From a quick look at your feedback history I would say you have many good negative feedbacks against scammers, but I don't agree with the idea of giving you a blank check to leave bad feedbacks (in my opinion) to other users I might trust. IMO, "tarnishing" a "famous" and very active user holds more weight than many negative feedback to randoms who are mostly inactive and with threads burred on the depths of the forum.

Interesting to read "every turn"
When? After you lied on my face? After this [question]
If it was a liar then your campaign would not stop. Do you think many of us are blind? Theymos was blind? He perhaps was not informed. In fact, you were misdirecting your campaigners to believe that it was not a mixer. Now following the same, you are misdirecting them, making them believe I am a liar that I was working hard over the past few days to present Jambler a mixer where I was replying your misdirection and having a conversation [two posts, all it was]. You and me may not agree with something but that does not mean I am not right and I lied.

Regarding about the PMs and what was in there, can't you prove it yourself? You can copy the entire PMs and make it public. We all will know the truth. I am sure others who received the PM can see what was sent to them. All will see your public post was enough for everything that happened very quickly.
That's very interesting. For a neutral feedback you made your conclusion without considering other feedbacks that are left and years of my stay on the forum? When was the last time it happened with a user who was excluded for a neutral feedback or somehow your quick decision was biased? No, I am not asking you to reconsider but ask yourself if you were biased or it happened naturally/neutrally.

I very disagree with your most recent neutral trust feedbacks, so I added you to my ~DT list. That's all.



As you can see, I have not done the same to hugeblack.

Those are two separate issues--getting banned from the forum and the trust system.  The former absolutely could happen in icopress's case.  I don't believe for a minute that he's got such influence in Theymos's eyes that he'd get special treatment.  I've seen some long-time members get banned before (though of the two that I remember, one was later reversed after the community stood up for him, and the other was a temp ban).  The trust system isn't moderated; that's a community thing.

I excluded JollyGood from my trust list a while back because of all the questionable or straight-up bad feedbacks he'd handed out.  But yeah, other members might have trouble with conflict.  


He didn't PM me about revising my trust list either, though I can't be certain he didn't PM anyone else.


And he did do that, so you're probably correct.


I would add that everyone should be using inclusions/exclusions to reflect their trust of other members' feedbacks and not for any other reason.  That's the way Theymos wants it last I heard, though obviously he doesn't enforce anything to do with trust, so the whole system is a chaotic mess that winds up being a drama-generating machine going full tilt sometimes.  In this particular case, I don't think OP should have been excluded from anyone's trust list based on his/her opinions about Jambler, mixers, icopress, or anything of the sort.

I don't think you or I can clarify anything, so there's no need to speculate. However, icopress did not deny the accusation. Let's see how this problem goes

From what I understand, it seems you are trying to insinuate that icopress PMed members telling them to distrust you following the incident. That's a huge accusation, do you have proof of this?
According to what I understood from his post, he was trying to inform them that they will receive a PM from him informing them that they had been moved to different campaigns, after which they would change signatures.

I saw different members get enrolled in other campaigns without applying. It makes sense the PM was more of an alert to the concerned members that they had been accepted in other campaigns rather than asking them to distrust you. I stand to be corrected.

You'd better worry about why you've turned into a vengeful troll who lies at every turn.

Well, I also don't care because after all Icopress is one of the trusted members and manages campaigns successfully and reliably because all the weekly payments are paid well by him.

Theymos only recently changed his mind about jambler, and stated it would be treated as a mixer from the 22nd of this month, and the campaign stopped a week or so before then. So what should the ban be for?

Well, I am not surprised that the parallel thread, since JollyGood did not want to open his for discussion, was created by the person concerned.


If I understand you correctly, I don't think that the quote you put justifies that icopress publicly asked people to distrust you. And privately I work for him in another forum and I have not received any PM, although if what you say is true, he could have sent it only to people in this forum, which I doubt.

Besides, people in DT should know that including or excluding people from their trust lists should be done based on the feedback they leave and their trust lists, not on the opinions they express about mixers.


He promoted them when they were allowed, as did he did with Jambler. When they were no longer allowed here he stopped promoting them.

So, should icopress be banned for promoting mixers? I don't think that will happen because famous members won't get banned easily. The rules here only apply to ordinary and low-ranking members.

This also happened to Jolly where he abused the trust system but was still considered a trusted member. I wonder, are many members afraid of jolly?

Such malicious behavior of JollyGood did not bother me at all. He can live for years to have the type of opportunities. In fact, I should feel lucky that he did not give a negative feedback yet [all for nothing]. I have no doubt that he is busy with his study to find a way to fulfill the ultimate mission. Nothing from him bothers me lately. I am absolutely cool with him.

What really bothers me is how some users thoughtlessly, seemingly without even thinking updated their default trustlist. First openly^[1] and then in PM, icopress told everyone [that are in his campaigns, targeting those who are effected by Jambler's ban] to distrust [as dislike/blame] BitcoinGirl.Club and it worked. Why icopress did that? Because he did not like my detailed documentation for his lie on my face and the neutral feedback I left for him & Jambler team
icopress achieved a temporary success just like he was temporarily successful for several months making everyone to believe^[blv1] that Jambler wasn't a mixer but a software provider. Until I^{[bgc1, bgc2]} and hugeblack^{[hb1, hb2]} had a conversation built up and finally theymos figured out the truth.

For the record, when theymos banned the mixers, I considered it as a punishment but decided to respect his decision.

I don't think I and hugeblack had any idea about the ban for Jambler was coming because of our discussion and some users to notify it to theymos. We were having a discussion just like a regular one [I made two posts showing why Jambler considers as a mixer, hugeblack noticed first post and replied then I made the second post. Fun fact: After a few days when I replied icopress, I was not aware that Jambler already is banned].

^[1]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63943388

^[bgc1] Described connections with their partners https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818
^[bgc2] Described even with the code written in the php language https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818

^[hb1] hugeblack picked it https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818
^[hb2] hugeblack described the diagram https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63934652

^[note] [...]working hard over the past few days [...]
Two posts ^{[bgc1, bgc2]} on April 10th was described as "working hard over the past few days". It sounds like, BGC sent PM and convinced theymos to apply ban for Jambler.

/*edited*/ View reference.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63971307