Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust - page 9. (Read 15798 times)

This is just stupid, I was posting this in Off-topic and this account is still mine. I did not sell it or it was offered for sale, it was stupid off topic post...seems Canary did not bother to take a look where and why it was posted.

How or why is he considered a trusted member of the community in your eyes? As far as I can tell from his trust feedback he has done very few deals over a short period of time. I am not really sure why he was ever put on default trust in the first place.

Already took care of it when I saw account selling post. Thanks!

That would explain it. Has someone already PMed Canary to ask him to remove the possibly sold account from his trust list?

THought Id post this here:



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9605837

A few weeks later all he does is promote terabox scam and leave negative trust to scambusters.

How about changing the negative to neutral?

I'd rather not involve myself. What I can add constructively though, is if people think that what Mabsark has done is wrong, and Mabsark is not willing to change their feedback, you then ask CanaryInTheMine to reconsider their trust of Mabsark's. If Mabsark can't be trusted to give accurate feedback, the pressure is then on CanaryInTheMine to decide whether they want Mabsark's actions to represent them.

I know, I almost took the bet as i knew it would go down, but instead made a stupid comment about a  gentlemen's club.

I feel that you have made no mistake in posting this thread. You have simply usurped the realisation that the good people in this community are not prepared to sit back and watch new users and new adopters of bitcoin be scammed senseless by pyramid schemes.

You have probably done more good, than harm. Mabsark remains a trusted member of this community and you seem to have (proverbially) shot yourself in the foot by picking and choosing which arguments to debate.
regards,

The motto of the whole group that is doing hulla-hoop over here is simple. This group can mostly be identified by their sig containing different companies traded on HaveLock. A few are also pushing through various threads they create. The motto is to push stock values up by applying Goebbels theory. You guys have bought them low and wanna sell them high.

By the way, why dont u ask for a pic of your God, err FriedCat ? Is it crime to ask for the pic of a person who returned 200 BTC in one day and raised 800 BTC in one week ? That would help u to worship him when HaveLock crashes !!!

i have previously raised concerns about publicly floated companies who are not part of, or regulated by the normal process of public liability.
I know a lot about public liability, having worked 17 years as a news photographer and the reason I, myself have never committed to investing in anything on havelock is because it is simply a rogue website (however you want to look at it) where public liability is of no concern to those who list stocks, nor to the entity which is havelock. I'll elaborate on what i mean by public liability (specifically, in stocks)...

Granted, havelock purport to have a selection process which seems in the onset, quite rigorous but it does not detract from the facts that if a company like AMHash wish to feed next generation after next generation after next generation with these publicly floated stocks, they can - and, they have been doing this. in the real world, this wouldn't have gotten past AM2 for the simple fact that investments were made into next GEN (and a new PO launched) prior to divs being paid.

I feel that there is a bigger debate to be had on this and I don't want to go too far off-topic in this thread, from my own vote of confidence in Mabsark and his entitlement to leave the trust that he has left for a scheme which, of course, looks in the entirety to be fraudulent.
again, Mabsark has my vote of confidence RE: the OP.

AFAICR, Ive only really been proven wrong about almost anything once in the past few years. I was wrong by 0.7% - thinking difficulty would not go down last week.
Its the only time I made a bet .

I always enjoy your input bt really hope you are wrong on this one. I sadly don't like the hashie relation very much, i still trust FC though,but that doe snot mean i trust hashie.

at the risk of further derailing this; friedcat does not know because he outsourced this to people who do not know what they are doing. Ive been talking to amhash about their partnership with hashie, and they simply do not understand they are unwittingly vouching for a scam and setting themselves up for a big problem. They do not know the identity of hashie operator either, just imagine the stupidity it requires to resell your products (and earned trust) through an anonymous almost-certain scammer who will later use his stolen trust to compete against you (the next "'gen 2" ponzi).

1. I don't need to wait till they've ripped people off in order to leave negative feedback and my reasoning for doing so and conditions for removal are sound. When leaving negative feedback it quite clearly states:


2. I'm not a shareholder of Havelock.

3. I didn't leave negative feedback for most cloud mining companies, just a select few.

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.
leaving negative feedback against a possible ponzi to warn others is a good thing.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.
He owns shares in Asicminer, not havelock so has no stake in havelock success. Asicminer has been traded off exchange in the past with great success.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.
Many Asicminer shareholders are voicing their concerns regarding the recent relation with hashie, Mabsark  i believe is one of them. My take on the whole hashie thing is.... Friedcat knows what he is doing.

3620 post shows that you are quite committed to this community and all that it stands for.
respect.

What is your take about the situation described in the OP ? Mabsark is trusted by the DefaultTrust member CanaryInTheMine. Do u think any of the following acts done by Mabsark is correct ?

1. Leaving -ve feedback on businesses that has not scammed anyone, but competing a company, where he is a shareholder.

2. Leaving -ve trust on people talking against HaveLock, because he is a shareholder over there.

3. Did not leave -ve trust on Hashie, though they were doing everything same the others are accused of, except that they started to resell the hash power of a company, where he is a shareholder.

I didnt say that. Im saying your business thrives on scams, hence your incentive is not to prevent them.


Thats a ridiculous argument, selling the account is just outsourcing the scam to the highest bidder and to someone more capable and willing of pulling it off without risking jailtime myself.


I dont need to prove I dont own shares, even if I held shares that wouldnt invalidate my points or make me a scammer. You accused me of shilling and promoting certain specific offers, and that I can easily disprove, That proof is my 3000+ post history which contains nothing resembling what you and spanishmoron claim and an overwhelming amount of posts that prove the exact opposite.