Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust - page 2. (Read 15798 times)

Yet he is refusing to do this. Nubbins is on his trust list and he has left me negative trust in an attempt to intimidate myself and others into not speaking out against his abusive behavior. He changed it to a neutral, but once Canaryinthemine said he was ignoring the thread he replaced it yet again with another similar negative rating demonstrating clearly he has no respect for the position on the default trust and will abuse it to serve his personal interests. Yet again, Canaryinthemine has no response to this. He is going beyond negligence and is now actively allowing multiple default trust abusers to stay on his trust list. This has been a regular pattern of behavior for Canaryinthemine.

it pretty much isnt Canaryinthemine sole fault
he just needs to put in some effort to clear off his trust list which i believe he put them in their trust list from his previous group buy

Yet another default trust abuser on Canaryinthemine's trust list: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/just-noticed-i-had-negative-trust-while-ive-never-traded-with-anyone-here-951134

Some are more equal than others. Nubbins has removed his abusive rating temporarily to preserve his position on the default trust. Shockingly after he has demonstrated he is again willing to abuse the default trust to punish people for critical words spoken out against him to attempt to intimidate people into silence, Canaryinthemine as well as staff are COMPLETELY SILENT on the issue. Why is is that the abuses of some members are condoned while other members are removed immediately with the cooperation of staff? I wonder.

Canaryinthemine YET AGAIN has another abusive user on his trust list, allowing them to use the default trust as a weapon to silence their opposition.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/remove-nubbins-from-the-default-trust-list-for-repeated-trust-abuse-935984

REMOVE NUBBINS FROM YOUR DEFAULT TRUST LIST. If this isn't default trust abuse, I don't know what is.

Below is a conversation between you and your best friend, which states more about u...

Basically, because I've got an AMHash sig and criticised a cloud mining ponzi he invested in, everybody else who criticised the ponzis became a sockpuppet for AM - those Chinese scammers led by Havelock/Friedcat that are running the real ponzi.

In other words, he's stark raving bonkers.

Where do you come up with these lists? For example...

You're free to your opinion that I'm now an Asicminer shill and that's a conflict of interest, though it's wrong. I'm not even sure how you somehow backed off me being an AMHash shill to now being an Asic Miner shill; it seems like it'd be a pretty inconsequential difference. I assume it's because I wish I'd gotten in on the IPO at 0.1 when it jumped to 4BTC/share 8 months later, but that's a similar logic jump to saying I'm a shill for the lottery company for wishing I'd picked the right PowerBall numbers even though I don't buy lottery tickets. Your opinion though, as you say.

As for leaving negative feedback for TeraBox, I cannot prove they are a ponzi, that is true. They display all the classic signs of a Ponzi though, in the same way that PBmining did. I couldn't prove PBmining was a Ponzi either (a fact you and all your Ponzi sympathizers seemed to love stating before PBmining blew up), but that didn't change the fact it was one. Is there a chance that TeraBox isn't a Ponzi? Probably. They could be a legitimate cloud mining company masquerading as a Ponzi. As I've said before, I would have no problem removing the feedback is TeraBox contacted me or provided any shred of evidence that they aren't a scam. Until then, much like Tomatocage tagging likely loan scammers, I will use my discretion to tag a company this is almost certainly going to default on their contracts. Since my leaving feedback for them isn't a conflict of interest as I have no stake in any cloud mining, my lack of right to be associated with default trust is simply your misguided opinion. I don't do it for you though, I do it for guys like this.


Now a question for you, do you have any shares in Terabox, have you taken one of their free vouchers, and/or have you advertised a referral link to them or received any referral hashing power?

You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U.


Mabshark => AM hash

MrTeal => Asic Miner

Raskul => Spondoolies Tech

Jimmothy => HaveLock

Puppet => HaveLock

CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.

All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.

iCEBREAKER
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916867.0;all

takagari
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-put-vod-on-such-a-high-horse-913889
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vod-needs-to-be-removed-from-defaulttrust-915549
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-trader-ratings-system-needs-some-sort-of-checks-and-balances-914551

EyesWideOpen
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878629.0;all

AndrewWilliams
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=329358.0;all

evershawn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702774.0;all

jayc89
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=517340.0;all

This is just the more reputable claims on the first page searching for "vod" within meta. There are many others with varying levels of validity. He has clearly shown a pattern of such behavior.

I have only seen 2 reports so far. Can you please give link(s) to thread/proof of any such thing he did?

   ~~MZ~~

I disagree. He can claim that he learned his lesson and changed his mind, but he was clearly attempting to intimidate me into silence about his abusive behavior. Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users, and it will not be the last. If VOD has not demonstrated he does not deserve the authority he holds by his actions, I don't know what does. I can't think of anyone else on this forum that would be tolerated if they acted like this, certainly not among the general public. He keeps saying he has "corrected" his behavior by trying to resolve the situation amicably AFTER he attacks people by abusing the default trust, but then he goes and does it again, and again, and again. VOD is a detriment to this community, regardless of how many "scammers" he has "stopped".

He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time.

   ~~MZ~~

It's been stated before, CanaryInTheMine has a ridiculously sized trust list that is not at all used for its purpose.

At the end of the day, people on Level 1 are supposed to choose people for Level 2 based on who they think will give good and accurate trust ratings. They're not supposed to add every single damn person they've traded with to Level 2! (He may not have added ALL of the people he has traded with, admittedly, but still...)

I am requesting Canaryinthemine remove VOD from his trust list for his clear abuse of the default trust system, outlined here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story.

How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in?

You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all.

My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added.

Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.

If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox.

Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.

The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies, though it really does not mean that all these companies will be able to able to survive in these cut throat competition of cloud mining.

Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust.
It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already.

If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam.

BTW - I notice that you aren't giving me crap about how I posted negative trust on PBmining's profile. Why is that?