Setting aside the arguments regarding MemoryDealers' character, the
scammer flag is not a correct use of the system, and should not be active. Supporters of the flag affirmed that this statement was true:
MemoryDealers violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced
here. MemoryDealers did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2017. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness?
The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify
specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup." If you just throw out a vague statement of, "Confusing information existed, so someone
could've been scammed into buying BCH," then reconciliation is impossible. Scammer flags are for
extremely clear cases with obvious victims, not cases which are impossible to definitively resolve due to political divisions and vague claims.
Oftentimes MemoryDealers expresses the opinion that BCH more accurately follows the original vision of Bitcoin than BTC. This is just an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, and it should not enter into the trust system at all. On several occasions, I think that he's crossed a line where he's implied that when people say/think "Bitcoin", they mean BCH, even in contexts
where this is not actually the probable meaning; this perhaps reasonably contributes to a type-1 flag, as do many of the other things mentioned in this thread such as the MtGox incident, the bc.i doxxing, the spreading of misinformation, supporting CSW, etc.
Sensible and courteous reply. Imagine you took the time to research and structure such clear insight into all matters here.
You seem to be directly inline with what we have said here on this core issue. If we were a merit source then your clear and correct insight is likely the only post (other than our own) that deserves merit and we would have given you some.
The important point is: He may believe (rightly or wrongly) bitcoin evolved to what BCH is today as a result of BTC violating or not following certain satoshi principles. Therefore that rightly or wrongly is his GENUINE opinion he believes bch should be called "bitcoin". However, it is highly probable and sensible to conclude that the vast majority were seeking BTC when trying to purchase "bitcoin" and would feel betrayed or even scammed if they ended up with a variant they were not intending to hold.
More irresponsible (not foreseeing the implications of not making it 100% clear) than scamming.
This matter should also not AUTOMATICALLY invalidate any other unrelated points that he wishes to make in future, although the above point may be part of any sensible debate.
The person RV (like it or not) is going to be historically very important in the trustless decentralized movement. Having a big SCAMMER notices above his threads and scam tags giving misleading and over stated damning almost defaming remarks should be fixed to a lemon flag and sensible accurate descriptions in the trust feedback.
They should say " irresponsible actions that resulted in people purchasing bch rather than the btc they wanted"
It would be interesting though to see some kind of comparison chart matching btc and bch against KEY points and requirements of the original satoshi white paper.
It is also interesting that both sides seem to be making the same claims about each other in some areas like " it will lead to it being centralized and controlled by X"
The network effect (of both) would certainly flow with less friction if a truce could be negotiated for each side to just get on with their own project and seek out their own adoption.
It is also worrying to have proven scammers and scam facilitators screaming "scamming scumbag" regarding what would seem to be far less dangerous and self serving motives than they have shown willing to employ themselves. Also finding ways to shut down peoples free speech and ability to even conduct and objective debate without derailing with off topic irrelevant insults and false allegations. Reign these people in before they really do open this board to criticisms that will be impossible to deny. That would certainly damage btc and the entire movement.
Stick around theymos and start sorting the real enthusiasts from the self serving scum bags that have almost seized full control of merit/trust and even moderator positions.
We support your position on this matter and many other matters (not our own)
IF people are incorrectly supporting flags THEN REMOVE THEM FROM DT. Start to get the message across that if you consistently make poor judgement calls or engage reasoning that collapses under scrutiny then you are not fit for a trust position (leaving aside the fact proven scammers should not be part of a trust system). You should have done this with the old system also. SADLY you have grandfathered this kind of abuse into the system now. If you have more negs than + before the flagging system you still get a THIS IS A SCAMMER message on all of your threads.
This is very strange, when you consider we have a flagging system BECAUSE the old system was being clearly abused? makes zero sense and punishes a lot of innocent members.
