Pages:
Author

Topic: Trust flags - page 13. (Read 12952 times)

full member
Activity: 546
Merit: 159
June 13, 2019, 05:44:44 PM
For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.
It is likely reflected on the last active day of busoni, 22th Feb 2018. I don't check back history when Circle took over Poloniex, but maybe around that time.

How long have your issues with Poloniex (with your 10 XMR) lasted? Recent months (after Circle-take-over), their supports have been fast, so I think if you sent support tickets, your issues will be solved, after all.
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
legendary
Activity: 1511
Merit: 1072
quack
June 13, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni

For what it's worth, I think Poloniex is currently owned by Circle.
legendary
Activity: 2758
Merit: 6830
June 13, 2019, 05:25:44 PM
I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
Apparently they do. This is Poloniex's owner: busoni

He already has 2 *old trust* tags from Lauda and Zepher from 2017. Maybe someone should "update it" with a flag.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
June 13, 2019, 05:14:54 PM
reasonable doubt to doubt my statement

None whatsoever for me, I recall you being part of Cryptsy scam discussions back in the day, so it would have been a mighty long con for you to stage it in the anticipation of this flag system just so that you could stick it to Big Vern's long dead account...

But we also have the [in]famous PM where a user was recommended to be excluded due to lying about being a victim.

It would help to know where the "lying" line is. What happens if someone says you (or I or whoever) lied about losing some dust in some shitcoin exchange.

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.

I have a similar issue with poloniex for 10 XMR but I don't think they even have an account here.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
June 13, 2019, 04:59:53 PM
reasonable doubt to doubt my statement

None whatsoever for me, I recall you being part of Cryptsy scam discussions back in the day, so it would have been a mighty long con for you to stage it in the anticipation of this flag system just so that you could stick it to Big Vern's long dead account...

But we also have the [in]famous PM where a user was recommended to be excluded due to lying about being a victim.

It would help to know where the "lying" line is. What happens if someone says you (or I or whoever) lied about losing some dust in some shitcoin exchange.

A more recent example: I lost $20 or $30 in Bittrex due to them blatantly disregarding their own rules of allowing non-KYC withdrawals up to a certain amount. Unlike Cryptsy they're still alive. To me it's a clear-cut violation of a written contract. I don't know if I can put a red flag on them though.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 2262
BTC or BUST
June 13, 2019, 04:42:24 PM
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Good question.
I'd say it depends on how extraordinary the claim is, or beyond reasonable doubt, and if their is any opposition or debate of the validity..

I believe I can reasonably prove that I used cryptsy right to the end with TXs but can't really prove a final balance, I'm not sure their is reasonable doubt to doubt my statement (or even anyone unreasonably doubting), their is also no opposition and likely never will be, nor any debate of the validity..

I think even the receivership accepted about that amount of "proof", so if you like US law as a standard (I don't) I think my claim would fly if requested to prove it, but I didn't go through that because it was a small amount.

Someone who was named in the receivership might have slightly better "proof" with a court having granted them a portion of recovered value, but even that isn't solid blockchain proof because that's what you get for sending coins to a 3rd party.. That would just be trusting a court's opinion, and who trusts a court? Much less a courts opinion on altcoins, lol.

LOL @ FH and your welcome for a non-QS opinion, there's mine but I did it so I might be biased toward myself..
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
June 13, 2019, 04:37:37 PM
Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  Wink

I feel violated every time anyone breaks my implied contract of paying me 1 BTC for every post but I'm willing to overlook these transgressions in exchange for a non-Quickseller answer to my question Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1756
Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!
June 13, 2019, 04:22:47 PM
~snip~
How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?
~snip~

Enough to prove you were contractually violated haha!  Wink

Check with your lawyer which you will now need to ensure your contracts are rock solid!!!

P.S NOTHING I EVER SAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONTRACT BETWEEN US (ME AND ANYONE ON THE FORUM)... EVEN IF I SAY ITS A CONTRACT IT'S NOT.

Now that we have that out of the way I can never be a scammer, who wants to lend me 3000 BTC!!!!
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
June 13, 2019, 04:14:45 PM
~

Talking about red box here. Try to keep up.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
June 13, 2019, 04:10:11 PM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

Ahem
Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3178
Merit: 3295
June 13, 2019, 02:48:46 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.

Thanks and if i see something like that and , or other posts with links that have some suspicious i am definitely reporting this posts !
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
June 13, 2019, 02:48:29 PM
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

How much proof of "victimhood" do we expect?

For example, is this sufficient:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51455373

Not trying to put eddie13 on the spot here, just want to know if I can re-flag some old scams (GAW, hashie, etc) where I lost some money but there is no way for me to find TX IDs or any other tangible proof of that.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 1724
June 13, 2019, 02:41:05 PM
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

In addition to the mentioned type-1/newbie-warning flag you can still report these topics, luring unsuspecting people to run malware is still a bannable offense. And a nuked user has all of their posts removed automatically anyway.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
June 13, 2019, 11:32:32 AM
Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

No "caution" anymore from trust feedback. Only from contract violation flags (red boxes), which can only be initiated by victims.

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.

Every previously red-tagged user lost the "caution" label, including heavyweight scamming champions like TradeFortress. Well, at least until new flags are created for them.

hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 793
Bitcoin = Financial freedom
June 13, 2019, 11:23:05 AM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?

I guess reason of that negative feedback will plays a role on being signature campaign,if it is for cheating and abusing bounties with alts then no chance of getting into the signature campaign if the signature campaign recognizes it.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1427
June 13, 2019, 10:56:19 AM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Is this only for accounts that received negative feedback before, or do you also not get a "Trade With Caution" tag anymore if you receive negative feedback after the update?

Isn't this going to unleash a legion of previously red-trusted bounty farmers/signature campaigners/etc, or am i missing something? The current way of "red-trusting" someone doesn't nearly look as intrusive anymore. I wonder if bounty managers will change their rules due to that.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18771
June 13, 2019, 10:34:03 AM
Is this how system should work?

See this post from theymos:
Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.

The example you have given had more pre-flag negatives than current positives, and so a warning banner is shown. This warning banner seems to maintain the text and appearance (red background) from the old system, rather than the new text and yellow background from the new system.

If this account did not have pre-flag-system negatives, then I would have thought that only bustabit would be able to create a type 2/3 flag based on the contract you linked, but any user could create a type 1 flag based on the thread you linked to in the negative trust you left this user.
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 264
June 13, 2019, 10:11:47 AM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.
Thanks for concern,I dont know what happen last year,They giving red trust when i use and borrowing the btc address of my friend coz here in my country the btc wallet have limit to recieve,withdraw.Since my friend have level 3 wallet it means he have a unlimited for recieving btc and withdrawal,but unexpectedly no one cares to my prob and someone DT2 gave negative trust for accusing.Maybe im wrong when i use his wallet address.I dont know if this new update for trust is effective.I hope someone good to start again.
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442
June 13, 2019, 10:02:39 AM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?


Depends on the campaign/campaign manager I guess. I don't think managers will hire people with red trust from DT members but who knows. You can always try.
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 264
June 13, 2019, 10:00:44 AM
My trust rating is +0 / =0 / -2,How it works with -2 on right side without sign of "Warning:Trade with extreme caution!"?.We can allow to participate on campaign with this?
Pages:
Jump to: