Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust - page 10. (Read 15798 times)

couldn't agree more. What he is doing is not abuse, it is actually good use. whats wrong with informing the community of a possible ponzi scheme, if its not it should not effect their business and in light of the ponzi backed mining collapse most of these services should be providing proof of hashing, we wouldn't want more people getting goxed would we?

Default trust doesn't give anyone on it an "advantage" its a huge responsibility. Being on the default trust list means you give others appropriate feedback, it doesnt mean that you are without a doubt trustworthy. How trustworthy someone is should be a huge consideration when adding someone to the default trust list, but its about who you can trust to leave accurate feedback for others.

If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.

If you want a system without default trust, all you have to do is look at "untrusted" and "trusted" feedback with the same weight. I don't give trusted feedback any weight unless its from personally someone I trust. If I see Badbear is trusted by Dingus, Doofus, and Dingleoid and I dont trust them even though they are on the default trust list, I dont value their feedback anymore than untrusted feedback. If Badbear is trusted by someone I trust default trustlist or not, that carries the most amount of weight.

...and retorts with personal abuse...

you are someone who makes money from people who wish to defraud people by buying trusted forum accounts.

For the lack of a better word, the obvious puppet is obvious (lol)

I refuted your claim that badbear is not a business by the fact that he has done business on here and that the risk and experience to the person doing business with him is the same. My other examples all very much run businesses but you ignored those.

you presented no facts. you classed badbear as a registered business. i stopped reading right there.

you are ignoring the facts that I presented. You instead steer the conversation away from my actual arguement because you cannot refrute it.

You are also incorrect about the sale of accounts causing scams. It reduces scams by putting value on an account so someone can choose to sell their account instead of scamming. A person's rank is essentially "proof of time spent on the forum" and there is no reason to trust someone solely on the fact they have spent a lot of time on the forum (or essentially paid for someone else's time on the forum). Signature campaigns are what allow Bitcoin related businesses to grow and advertise as other firms of advertisement are prohibitively expensive. Not allowing signature campaigns would further centralize Bitcoin related businesses into few large early entrants.

Since you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty, you were accused of owning ASICminer shares and bashing the competition in order to cause your shares to rise in value. You have denied this but have not proven that you do not own shares. Under your own logic you should be labeled a scammer until you can prove you do not own such shares.

Quickseller sells forum accounts.  The real demand for forum accounts comes from scammers (if its an old/trusted account) who want to pull off a confidence scam, and from signature campaign beggars, who thrive on scams. How any of these things are allowed here is completely beyond me, and completely kills this forum, but at least dont expect people who feast on this to like scammers being exposed for what they are; its bad for this kind of shitty business.

BadBear does business on here. Doing business as a "person" is essentially the same as doing business as a company as far as the experience and risk to the customer is concerned

The first retort you make is to call badbear a registered business.
You are full of shit, goodbye.

I agree.
I disagree. There is no reason a business cannot operate anon. If a business is not anon then they would be subject to potential attacks from people trying to steal from their business. How many people know BadBear's real identity or his address? How many people know the same about Stunna, or Tomatocage, or Dobs, or Danny? With the exception of Danny, I don't think more then a handful of people (if any) know their real name, and probably no one knows their true address. Yet the community still trusts all of them tremendously.
Who gets to set these "regulations"? I have not seen any democratic process to set any kind of regulations required to adhere to to conduct business.
What are you talking about? This is not an example of the community "coming together" this is an example of one person leaving trust to other people

the facts of the matter:

there are way too many people out there using bitcoin to commit fraud.
businesses do not get to be 'anonymous' - there are regulations in real life which must be adhered to.
those regulations should also be applied here, as a community, with bitcoin as the core asset to protect.

with the community coming together in this way, we can ensure that bitcoin is not used as a vehicle for fraud.

From his left feedback I am glad that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in our community

While I certainly think it would be foolish to "invest" in any of these cloud mining companies, I don't think evidence has been provided they are scamming.

Regardless of if they are a scam it is inappropriate to leave trust as he is a shareholder of ASUCminer (a competing service). Plus even though some companies have "proven" they are actually mining on behalf of their customers there is nothing to force them to continue to provide mining payouts.

If someone is an idiot, he'll be scammed. On or off the internet. If u want to police that, then this is your only option...


On the other hand, when someone gets the power to decide what is a scam and what is not, that is inadvertently gonna be abused.

If you keep trust, but not DefaultTrust, then u r only trusting people by your choice. Forum is not spoon feeding you, which is far far better.

Agreed here as someone who've did this last time too.
Without a form of crowdsourcing the reviews on individual users, the sole admins and moderators here would've collapsed under the multitudes of scammers jumping up every day.

No, it would only work for people like that, who have no 'enemy'. No one has incentive to give that guy negative trust, he hurt no one and did an amazing job.
However, try exposing GAWminer, or BFL once upon a time, and see what happens to your trust rating when one of the Josh's begins paying for negative feedback for any critics.

Interestingly, the people on DefaultTrust do not. Because they are enjoying the undue advantage. If u are really trustworthy, then trust system would work great for you even without DefaultTrust, e.g. this guy => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143551. DefaultTrust is simply babysitting certain individuals as trustworthy.

Default trust is flawed, but otoh, consider if you weigh everyone's vote equally, that most scams here will beat you in numbers due to all the paid-for-via-signature campaign and referral shills. As a result every obvious ponzi with a lucrative profit sharing deal (ie referrals) will get high trust scores, and any wannabee scambuster like yours truly will be labeled a scammer.

i think the majority most likely agree with you on this.

No. There is no problem in the trust system. The root of the problem is DefaultTrust and that is to be abolished.

Details: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defaulttrust-is-bad-very-bad-311527

May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed.

Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on.