The TOS of coin chat was something along the lines that if you are running a bot then you must include the substring "bot" in the account you are posting from
I don't think that's true. When the API was first introduced the ToS didn't mention anything about naming bots. That came later.
Others have confirmed that the TOS of coinchat was setup so that *people* would get paid for posting.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11163154Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3260505Clearly tspacepilot did is unethical. Its common sense. My advise to you tspacepilot refund TradeFortress and move on.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3269384Salty sums this up well, I agree with him. OP looks to be completely in the wrong here, TF in the right.
He has a history of using bots to earn money from websites when doing such would be against the rules and fraudulent.
Not that I know of, unless you're referring to the misunderstanding with coinchat.
Look at salty's post that I quoted/linked above.
What is one reasonable explanation why someone would use leet speak with his "b0t" as he did? I would find it hard to believe that someone would seriously think it is a "misunderstanding" when they name their bot "b0t" when it should have been named "bot". It is ridiculous to say this was a misunderstanding.
His inquiry is similar to a convicted rapist asking a victim of rape how the perpetrator got away with the crime against her.
That's just silly talk. To compare a guy who wrote a malfunctioning bot to a rapist? It's just wrong to judge people for their curiosity. I was watching the movie "Cop Car" recently. The killer used a bag of Lime when burying a body. I was curious as to why, but was too scared to Google about it, because I didn't want "using lime to help body decompose" in my search history. It's a sad state of affairs when our curiosity can bring suspicion upon us. "Why would he be Googling that if he didn't kill somebody?"
The comparison was between two types of people who have a history of a specific crime who are trying to find ways to execute their crimes in ways that avoid detection and increase success.
This would be similar to if JD had a rule that when people make bets they should verify the bet and submit the outcome of the bet so JD can debit/credit their account accordingly (and JD would not check all of the results to ensure that everyone was reporting honestly). This would obviously be a very poor implementation and would be asking for fraud, however it does not mean that anyone who lies about their bet result would not be committing fraud.
Such a system would be inherently broken and need fixing ASAP. Of course people are going to try to game it. But that's not relevant here, since tsp wasn't trying to game anything.
The point of it being broken and needing fixing does not matter. You cannot aruge that tspacepilot was not trying to game anything because the rule said that all bots should be named "bot" and his bot was named "b0t". I cannot think of any example how it could be any more clear that he was gaming the system.
He created multiple threads trolling me, and was posting in various threads for months trolling me. He made it clear that unless I would remove my negative rating against him that I would continue to receive such trolling.
It sounds like he isn't willing to roll over and let you leave your multiple unfair feedbacks stand against him. He feels like you've taken a stand against him for some reason, and doesn't want to just forget about it.
No, it sounds like he was trying to intimidate me. It would be one thing to speak his opinion, it is another thing to troll across numerous threads.
The issue is that he agreed to name any bot with the substring "bot"
What makes you think that is true? It seems your entire persecution of tsp stands on this point and yet the point is false.
There are several examples of reputable people saying (at the time) that the rule was to use "bot". I also see zero reasonable explanation as to why someone would name their bot "b0t" if they were not aware of restrictions on naming bots.
I'm not aware of him having lied about anything. Is there some example you can quote?
See that last post in which I replied to you. I gave several examples in this thread in which tsp said that I was wrong in my rating. My rating is factually accurate as he did deceive coin chat when he told coin chat that he was not using a bot
He disagrees with your rating of him. What if that's because your rating is unfair? That wouldn't be him lying now would it.
What if your rating is based on a misunderstanding of the T&C of a site you weren't a user of and have little to no experience of?
In other words, what if you're wrong?
I am not wrong. I carefully considered the facts prior to leaving my rating.
I can however give another example as to how he was lying.
12:04:46 (1157905) → (1) <@dooglus> anyway, what he says is factually false, i did dispute the 0.5 and fwiw, that was one of the main sticking
points in trying to resolve what happened
Take a look at
this thread. Why don't you point to where tspacepilot tried to resolve what happened? That message seems to imply that he is admitting that he took/received money that he should not have received (which also invalidates your arguments above saying that it was a misunderstanding and that he was not trying to game anything).
Yes, there are no rules regarding the DT List, but I would suggest to remove the rating or at the very least change it to neutral.
I agree.
Noted.
--snip--
the several[1] ratings make me question whether this is personal or not.
--snip--
[1] @QS Im not sure whats wrong with that word, but you left 3 ratings, as QS, as ACCTSeller (now removed) and as FunFunnyFan.
It was explained in one of the many other threads why I left a rating from ACCTSeller, it was because the substance of the rating was not such that it would be appropriate for a "trade with caution" tag to be applied, but still be necessary to give a warning to others. However after further research, it seems that tspacepilot actually invited the negative rating from ACCTseller:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11140044I think overall your contribution to the trust system is a net positive,
I am glad to hear that this is your opinion. Based on this comment, it sounds like you are considering to add me to your trust list.
dooglus
~Quickseller
dooglus 139: -0 / +15 2015-08-24 1.00510000
Reference I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems.
Tspacepilot posted the address 12d2dfgi1cz77mxFkHA5Gf9PdpwLVzfGKK
here among
many other places. As of block 367976 that address had a sum of 5
BTC worth of unspent inputs and has not spent any of those inputs since then. Block 367976 was found on 8/1/15. The claimed loan happened several weeks after that (and was repaid on a gambling site).
Why would someone who has so much bitcoin need this kind of a loan? Why would you think it would be a good idea to lend someone with tspacepilot's trading and trust history 1
BTC worth of an altcoin?
I have no answers to the above questions. What I do have however is what this certainly looks like. This looks like that this is an example of selling trust, either for the entire 1
BTC amount (assuming there was no loan, only a "repayment"), or for whatever the interest amount was (assuming there actually was a loan). For a number of reasons that I am not going to call you out on (yet), I am leaning towards the former. The selling of trust is highly frowned upon within the community.
I would ask you, are you really willing to stake your reputation on this person? He admitted to you that he received money that he should not have (he claimed it was a very small amount, but he still confirmed that he received money). This person has a history of extensively trolling anyone who disagrees with him (or more specifically speaks ill of him).
The first and easiest example of this is tspacepilot trolling TF. TF had given tspacepilot a negative rating in September 2013 (despite tspacepilot repeatedly claiming that the incident happening
over 3 years ago), and in September 2014, tspacepilot was still
trolling TF. (there are many more instances of this trolling around this time, however due to TF's repeated name changes, I am having difficulty finding them. IIRC they were in various meta threads regarding TF leaving negative trust for continuing to advertise for dicebitco.in.).
As mentioned above, bitcoininformation (aka Mitchełł) had said many times that tspacepilot was in the wrong and that tspacepilot was deserving of negative trust (but did not leave a negative rating himself). This also happened in September 2013. Then, in October 2014 (until at least January 2015 - at least 3 months!), tspacepilot used one of his
alts, which has the handle
sed to be extremely
critical of bitcoininformation's selling of advertisements on his
Overview of Bitcointalk Signature campaigns thread. (Here is
another example of his harsh criticism,
here is another[/url], and
another, and
another, and
another). There are only some examples of this, however I am fairly certain there are more. Although he could argue that he
actually felt the opinions he expressed in those posts, I think the extreme level of trolling that he used would make it reasonable to conclude that those (and the others that I was not able to quickly find) was vengeance for bitcoininformation speaking against tspacepilot well over a year prior to those posts.
I was a frequent
advertiser on bitcoininformation's thread that tspacepilot (
another example of me advertising on that thread, among others) did not want bitcoininformation selling advertisements on. I suspect that the reason I became a target of tspacepilot was because I was doing business with someone who he had a vengeance for. Tspacepilot's trolling against me started when he
asked me to sign a message from an address that I (accurately) claimed to be holding escrow funds for a signature campaign that he was not participating in. This is extremely unusual because the escrow for the
signature campaign that he was actually participating in similarly did not sign a message from the address funds were being held in (this was prior to him making the inquiry regarding my escrow address), and not only that, but he has consistently stuck up for DaDice despite their refusal to sign a message from their cold storage address(!). I had explained
here (among other places) that this is why tspacepilot got on my radar, and I was able to
quickly find evidence that tspacepilot is/was a scammer, and left him a negative rating after carefully considering the facts and evidence. Despite his efforts to make it otherwise my negative rating is not personal (nor is it incorrect).
I really do not think it is a good idea to be endorsing someone like tspacepilot, nor do I think it is a good idea to be associated with someone like him. I think that leaving your positive rating on tspacepilot and leaving the ~ next to my name on your trust list will end up severely damaging your reputation.
I think it would be advisable to remove the positive rating you left on tspacepilot and to remove the exclusion next to my name. Both of which I think it is reasonable to conclude were sold.
not sure what you're really trying to prove there, doog. but it appears you're trying to teach QS a lesson using tsps "case".