Topic: TECSHARE is abusing the trust system (Read 1935 times)

Aren't you the one that scammed over 2,000 bitcoin from this community?  (Spoiler alert:  yes)

Yeah, that compares with someone not trusting me. (sarcasm).

Pay back the community Thief.

Aren’t you the one theymos has excluded from his trust network and marked as distrusted? (Spoiler alert: yes)

Bump... trust system abuse continuing

TECHSHARE is still pretending he can read minds and predict the future.  Clear sign of mental illness and, as Theymos says, he has no place on DT.

Very proud of you. I am sure that makes you an expert on cryptocurrency trading and trading bots. This is all besides the point, the point being you assumed I have no knowledge of what I am referring to and you were mistaken. You and your new friends are doing a great job of stripping away all the freedoms people come here to enjoy so you can turn crypto into exactly what it was designed to escape from.

If you will notice you didn't actually even address my argument that this flag is arbitrary and subjective and rather instead again started arguing about how you think your assessment is correct. I don't know Cryptosparks let alone even support him. What I do know is that this system of arbitrary accusation and inquisition is not only an abuse of the trust system but is extremely destructive to this community. Complain some more about drama as you create more of it with your trust system abuse and your new friends.

You deleting the positive trust rating you left for me is a nice touch as well. Way to prove you don't abuse the trust system by only leaving ratings when it serves you and deleting ratings at the slightest criticism. Go for the gold.

EDIT: I may be remembering a rating from Kalemder

You can do a quick google search on me, find my identity and go to any reputable hedge fund in Zurich, Frankfurt or London today,
and they will be happy to tell you about me and my trading record, but ok let's not digress so much here...

Cryptosparks is a smart guy and I like some of his witty comebacks; however with regards to his capital management offers he is at best an overeager total rookie unaware of his fiduciary responsibilities as a prospective asset manager, and at worst is deliberately feigning ignorance and misrepresenting many of the risks inherent in his proposition to sign up as many people as possible because it's a free call option for him with 0 downside...

If you disagree with such an assessment, that's fine, why don't you then meet his minimum requirement and make a 100 USD Bitmex account, and publish the track record here for the next 3 months (after all it's not so bad to make 20% / month ). I believe your statement that you are not affiliated with him in any way, and if you average even half of the roughly 20% / month performance he is claiming for the next 3 months, you will have made a phenomenal statement against your detractors, I'll also withdraw the neg feedback on him, and finally something substantial can come out of these incessant DT dramas...

^ in reply to this, didn't we often use "caveat emptor" on a lot of the boards where sales and trading took place? At a quick glance I couldn't locate the phrase.

It seems like the mentality with the new flags is that people are putting all blame and focusing on DT1 creating nonsense flags at the first sign of anything out of the regular. The buyers need to also be responsible. As I have seen mentioned before.. a person that's bad with money and not doing their own research is going to lose their money whether it is now or later..

The standard for flags is not some arbitrary subjective determination of "unreliability". I have seen no one present any evidence Cryptosparks is up to anything illicit whatsoever beyond mere suspicion. Just because most people think something doesn't make them correct, and as some one with a financial background I would figure that is critical life experience to have any success in that field. Bitcoin itself was nothing more than a joke to the world for the longest time, and the ones who looked at the facts instead of just its popularity benefited greatly.

Your understanding is incorrect. Not only do I have extensive experience with trading, I know people who make a living explicitly doing what Cryptosparks does, and his claims are not at all unrealistic. Furthermore I have been in every role relating to cryptocurrency managing a project that at one point had a market cap of over $10 million dollars and was the highest returning asset of ANY CLASS globally as far as percent gains for the year of 2014 under my management. So excuse me when I say I probably have more knowledge in this arena than you do.

I don't know Cryptosparks, he is not my buddy, and I have had zero contact with him before this flag issue. You will notice I am not using ad hominems when I am talking to you, but are reserving them for others who have a long history of attempting to "get me" at any opportunity in retaliation for various perceived slights. You really have zero awareness of the relational dynamics of this situation, so please shelve the sanctimonious judgment over my language. I am presenting solid logic based arguments regardless of my inclusion of ad hominems from time to time directed towards people who have more than earned the honor with their own duplicity and slander. Why shouldn't people being judged unfairly tell the people delivering judgements upon them to go fuck themselves? Is that not the beauty of the freedom of working for yourself? Being nice and doing what is popular and upsets the least amount of people is not synonymous with being trustworthy.

I was hoping as some one who has been on the receiving end of these arbitrary accusations you would understand the flaw in judging people based on popular consensus instead of factually observable objective information, but it appears I was wrong, hence my removal of you from my inclusions. From where I sit it seems to me that you and others now feel like you have been accepted into the fold and are just abandoning any principles of fairness and seeking to ingratiate yourself with your former abusers hoping to be included into the default trust cartel. I haven't yet come to a final conclusion as to your own character, but I am not going to support you while you run around perpetrating these arbitrary mob inquisitions on the user base by supporting these arbitrary types of flags in the hopes you get to join the popular kids club.

Tecshare what are you doing man, there are hundreds of posts demonstrating the total unreliability of Cryptosparks' business model, it's probably now become the most discussed flag on the forum:

Check here, here and here:

From your general tone I understand you are completely outside the realm of financial services, and yet you seem hell bent on protecting someone whose business propositions have been debunked very convincingly by many members just because you can never seem to palate the possibility that you may be mistaken on any issue whatsoever...

And just like our old buddy Cryptosparks here, you seem to lash out with ad hominems whenever people disagree with you...

My advice to you, the trust system might not be for you because you take every debate regarding it way too personally, relax and move on.

It would do wonders for your psychology if you understand that being wrong every once in a while does not compromise your honor and dignity, it's just part of being human. Good luck.

So if I add some one when they are on DT it is only because I want a reciprocal add. If I add some one who isn't on DT and later remove them it was because I plan to add them again later if they get on DT. Me participating in ANY WAY in the trust system is grounds for suspicion according to you and the other clown cartel members regardless of how transparent I am about it or how I justify it. None of the people accusing me of manipulation would themselves pass these levels of scrutiny of their own trust lists full of reciprocal adds and retaliatory exclusions, but of course they are above reproach and don't have to explain themselves as winners of the popularity contest. Everyone knows being popular means you are trustworthy of course.

Yeah, mainly if Kalemder re-adds you (he dropped you on 9/19, surprised it took you so long to reciprocate) and Vispilio gets added to DT1 

Those seem to be your basic behavioral criteria.

Just wanted to post here so that people looking to target me can't use it as a "gotcha" moment later as if I don't know my trust inclusions are public and they have exposed some crime I was trying to keep secret. I have removed Kalemder and Vispilio from my inclusions over their support of this flag. I am disappointed after themselves being targeted by these kind of arbitrary flags that they turn right around and do it to others. I am open to changing this later if I see a change in behavior.

Your word being worthless and your lack of testicles in an empty shriveled nut sack make me not care what you think. 

Your word being worthless and your lack of testicles in an empty shriveled nut sack makes you an inferior bitch.

Of course you don't find me moral - you have a different definition. 

You just posted the past is irrelevant.  lol  You are the one abusing the trust now, and the community agrees with my feedback.

Your double talk and contradictions must make you go to bed feeling superior to everyone else.

You literally just quoted me asking...

Of course this is just you mirroring my words in a sad attempt to make this seem as if this is a mutual thing rather than a years long harassment campaign on your part. Funny how you can never provide documentation for these "lies". You are right about one thing though, you are simple. Moral, not in the least.

lol - you never did ask.

There's no way to have a conversation with you, is there?  Your goal is simply to disrupt business here.

I'm a simple moral person who does not like coordinated trust abuse or confirmed, documented liars.  


So exposing scammers like you makes me worse than you are?  Try again, bozo.

You never did tell me who I am coordinating with, myself? Theymos?

It is a documented fact regardless of what you want to characterize it as. Also, Theymos is currently only excluding one of us right now, so the fact he excluded me in the past is irrelevant.

Oh, you'll include Theymos in your coordinated attacks against me now?  Is that why he has excluded you "for the first time" for over five years?   You read his mind like you do mine?   No wonder you are obsessed with clowns and circus acts...  Ah techy, your stupidity amuses me,and time you spend making up these theories is flattering.

I used the trust system against you once, that was for you doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS, and Theymos himself excluded you over it and said that was a valid case for a negative rating. You on the other hand, have left me completely undocumented and fabricated negative ratings repeatedly over the past 6 years, and in order to save face, yes you were forced to remove them. So is your argument now I coordinated with myself to have you repeatedly abuse the trust system against me over 6 years? You didn't "give me any chances", you have been stalking me and demonstrably lying about me to justify your repeated abuse of the trust system ratings over half a decade because I dared publicly criticize your behavior. In the interest of peace... lol please Vod, I can only piss myself laughing so much at your presentation of false moderation and reason. Everyone knows you boil bunnies under a shrine with my profile pic in it every night before bed.

At this point I don't even blame you, I blame this community for continuing to prop you up and enabling your long history of unstable and abusive behavior against anyone who criticizes you. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes me not at all feel bad about poking fun at these circus acts, because this community is too busy hiding in a corner unwilling to take a difficult stand to fix the problem, but they are perfectly willing to bitch about the symptoms of not doing so perpetually and pin the fault on their favorite scapegoats coincidentally designated by the perpetrators.

It costs the community as individuals nothing to leave these abusers in a position of authority, and it costs me nothing to piss in the eyes of these clowns so much they throw entire festivals to try to slander me. In summary, none of this drama bothers me, but I would much rather be doing my own thing instead of dealing with the sad party magician and his clown friends. Unfortunately I don't have a choice in the matter until the community stops pretending these people are in any way respectable and should be in any position of authority over anyone, and starts collectively taking responsibility for everyone they have been turning a blind eye to. Until that happens this place is always going to be 4Chan with an extensive research library, no matter what I do.

Enjoy your desperate attempts to create even more confusion to cover up for your own behavior Vod.

Let me clear things up for everyone.   At no time has the community forced me to remove anything.  I have given techy many chances over the years, but I can't tolerate trust abuse coordinated to ruin my reputation.  One day I may remove it yet again in yet another interest of peace, but right now he needs to know his abuse is noticed and unwanted.

Vod please stop fooling yourself,its getting more and more ridiculous you are just being pathetic,trying hard to counter the problems you've made,tecshare deserves his position not like you !
Lauda's gang will soon be forgotten,and you idiot will become clown in this forum.

I'm of the firm opinion that he gets inclusions as a thanks for including others. There's simply no good reason for him to add 7 local board DT1 members whom he had no prior history with or knowledge of until they joined DT1.


Perhaps. Still not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

Thanks for the support. I just want to correct one thing though. I never gave Vod a retaliatory trust rating, ever. He has given me negative ratings several times over the years for criticizing his behavior, but the community forced him to remove it, and I have never once responded in kind. Then earlier this year when he doxed and reported OGNasty to the IRS, I finally negative rated him for that. Of course a short time later here he is retaliating.

I don't believe that Tecshare is a scammer.

Regularly abrasive and rude - yes.

He often voices the opposite of the views held by a vast majority on DT.

But I think his opinions are genuinely held.

I believe his dissent from the norm is the main reason why he gets trust list inclusions.

It is a bit of "the enemy of my enemy - is my friend".

I often disagree with his opinion but it does provide for good discussion.

So far I have not seen Tecshare misuse his DT1 role by giving unwarranted negative feedback. (other than the reciprocal negatives between him and vod).

DT is ultimately about placing accurate feedback rather than manners or opinions.

Done. 

You guys think TS is conspiring with others about the trust system more than the DT1 who have been on since the start?
I think not..

No thanks, I will leave the peanut hunt up to you guys. I am just making the point that this level of scrutiny could be applied to literally anyone to try to cast aspersions.



Right. For that matter, if some one sees a problem with my list, the logical thing would be to notify me of it. That is unless of course the intent was to use it to defame me rather than correct the supposed issue, in that case a circus is in order.

Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.

---

As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)

This would be when we "buried the hatchet" and had a few good pm's back and forth. Also around the time I decided not to trust/distrust someone based on their opinion, for better or worse.

The plot thickens: in week 8 (counting by my Trust list viewer's weeks), TECSHARE stopped excluding Hhampuz and in the same week started including him. At the same week, Hhampuz stopped excluding TECSHARE and a week later Hhampuz included TECSHARE.

Disclaimer: I'm just spitting out data, I have no idea what conspiracy to tie to this data.

You included me in week 2 so I'm sure there is some conspiracy somewhere.