Topic: Wardrick account hacked---trust abuse resolution in sight (finally) - page 14. (Read 25345 times)

When it comes down to it Theymos has all of the control over all of the trust. Theymos decides who is depth 1, and those guys have all of the power. I am added by a few people that are depth 1 making me a depth 2 user. Depth 2 can make people red, but can not add others into trusted status. If I mess up somehow the depth 1 guys can easily stop my ratings from being trusted by removing me from their lists or using the ~.
Overall this trust system works well as you only hear about a few cases, but I bet 20+ ratings happen per day here with no issues. Someone like QS will cause some drama doing his thing, but the positives out weight the negatives by a lot. I guess you could say some collateral damage is bound to happen a long the way. The fact that we can publicly dispute things here in meta makes for a decent checks and balances.

The point of people being trusted by default is supposed to eliminate the chance of a paid to be added scenario... Those people are supposed to be the most trusted here.

Its not massively flawed. Only one or two bad cases are there. Now, only this one IMHO.


The person who adds another one should be in default trust depth 1. Else, no.


Yes, there is one. Theymos. I don't know if BadBear has access to 'DefaultTrust' account.

P.S. Theymos is only controlling 'DefaultTrust' account. He is not a scam buster and I don't think he should be one unless he likes to. Users in default trust list is already doing a good job so far. Some people do make mistakes and sometimes, they are intentional. If they do it for more than a few times, they get removed quickly. This is not the case with QS, he is doing a great job but this one is a very exceptional. I don't know why QS is not ready to change it to neutral.


It will be reported sooner than you think. If user who included him does not remove the scammer, he will also be removed from default trust depth 1.

I think it's clear that the Default Trust list is massively flawed. I hate reading stuff where people get negative trust & are labelled scammers when they just don't seem to be scammers at all.

Can I get this right - If somebody on Default Trust puts another poster on their trust list then that person is also then added to Default Trust?

I think the only way to sort it is for bitcointalk.org to employ one poster whose only job is to patrol the forums scam busting & controlling the Default Trust list & leaving people negative trust. There are just far too many people who can ruin good posters/peoples reputations if the Default Trust list is left how it currently is.

It's one big, sorry mess as far as I'm concerned, what's stopping a scammer paying somebody on Default Trust to include him/her on their trust list so they then become a Default Trust member? They could then hit somebody or some company for a lot of bitcoin. It's all a load of crap, governed & controlled by nobody in particular.

But with respect to leaving negative reputation points, you're not supposed to "trust-spam" or continually use your alts to leave many negative ratings.  That is against the rules and people have been banned for it.  QS left me three ratings with three accounts.  He has recently deleted one of them (presumably responding to commenters above) but it's not clear why he hasn't removed the more trolling comments from his alt FunFunnyFan.

I agree that it's absurd and as you can see in the many quotes in the OP of this thread, everyone who has looked into this situation is calling for him to withdraw his abuse on me.  Yet he ignores it.

From what I've seen, QS' strategy is to argue with distractions and overblown comparisons (he literally compared me to convicted rapist just a few posts upthread?!).  Often, given the mob-mentality of "justice" that often develops in pseudo-anonymous internet fora, this is enough to exhaust his victim and that's that.  Other times the victim has stamina for the onslaught and continues to ask QS to explain the rating and the reason for the attack, when QS cannot answer, he simply moves on.  He can easily draw everyone's attention elsewhere by attacking a new person (scammer or not a scammer).

So that seems to be what he's doing now with me.  As he couldn't answer dooglus' points, he's just gone on to something else.

These forums have become toxic. From Theymos all the way down.

Ahem, uh, quickseller, hello?

You seem to feel obliged to reply to dooglus and others, do you think it's okay to ignore this and hope it goes away?  It's much better for your reptuation to go ahead and solve the problem.  At this point, you know the right thing to do.

You have removed one of your sockpuppet ratings.  Can you please take care of the trolling from FunFunnyFan so that we can say that part is resolved?

It would be a great step forward for you to eliminate your trust-spam in this situation and you and I will apparantly only have the matter of your unsupported allegations of me at coinchat to talk about.

I'm very glad that this situation is finally getting the attention it deserves, both from others and from Quickseller.  I'm also very pleased that Quickseller decided to remove one of his sockpuppet ratings.  I hope that he will go ahead and remove the other one, so that we can offically say that one of the main abuses here has been resolved (that of trust-sockpuppetry).

I have added several more of you all's comment to the OP, the list of quotes calling for Quickseller to end this attack has grown quite large.  I sincerly hope that Quickseller is willing to listen to his peers on this one.  As I said directly to Quickseller months ago, the more that people look closely at what happened here, the more that is going to harm his own reputation and his ability to contribute to the "scambusting" team, which seems to be a very strong motivation for him.  Using a position of default trust to try to smear someone you don't like is not the way to build your own reputation.  It won't work in the long run.  People make mistakes and lessons can be learned and I'd like to think that Quickseller is ready to learn a lesson here and move on.

As things stand, we've made some real progress this week with the removal of one of the sockpuppet ratings and the fact that QS is finally engaging to try to publically explain himself.  I sincerely hope that we can all be moving along soon as this situation has gone on for way too long.

Normal trust may not be moderated but default trust is, in a way moderated and when someone abuses it they are kicked out, so it is moderated and he could be forced to change it in the future or forced indirectly if he gets kicked out of DT again

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.


Not that I know of, unless you're referring to the misunderstanding with coinchat.


Stunna is offering free money for people to visit his site. He knows that people will try to game the system using bots. He's free to try to fight against it by using CAPTCHAs and such like, but to cry "fraud" when someone successfully games the system isn't accurate.


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?"

Edit: I couldn't resist any longer:


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.


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.


What makes you think that is true? It seems your entire persecution of tsp stands on this point and yet the point is false.


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 agree.

It's not fact that no one can force him. Last time when TC forced him he did removed neg feedback. Or TC can easily remove him from DT list and then his feedback will not matter like lasst time when Badbear removed him from DT too.

Everyone know even TC and Badbear too Quickseller negative feedback on Tsp because of personal grudge. He first did dug up all tsp posts and necro post to very old thread from his alt account accountseller and then gave negative feedback from AS acc and base of that acc he gave negative feedback from QS acc.

That time no one knew AS acc also belong to QS and it was simple abuse/spam of trust feedback from multi acc to Tsp profile.
Even he later try to defend himself from his alt like FunFunnyFan and even we don't know how many other account.

When tecshare gave wrong feedback to armis everyone know how badbear and other influenced the guy who put tecshare on DT list.
They forced them to remove them on their list or they will be gone for DT 1st level.

So it's just virtually true that feedback not moderated, Admins need to understand sometime they have to interfere (like they did on tecshare case)
on matter otherwise drama will be going on and on.

If they did interfere before it was closed almost at the time when it was started but they did not and this chaos continue.

I know Tsp also exaggerated this method so much but if he did not then everyone not talking about this.

Quickseller feedback mostly time correct but it's also true when he got on DT list he behave like different person then normal QS.

P.S. TC need to understand that TC account is not his main account. He has other main account and he created TC acc to give feedback to scammers and for escrow work. So he should avoid adding controversial members to his list. Otherwise what is the benefit of his TC acc when he also created this account for just giving feedback or escrow.

But no one can really force him to change his negative feedback, maybe one day he will retract and change it to a neutral one or better delete it.  No one remember this sentence : Trust system is not moderated.

---

However I don't think that tspacepilot is a 'bad' person and the -ve trust is not necessary in my opinion (Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.)  Maybe Quickseller thinks that tspacepilot IS a scammer, but I think he is wrong.

Yes you are right, there is no solid proof and even if it is, as dooglus said, it´s not really fraud? I mean after all quickseller was selling accounts with DT, which i would consider fraud. He should change it to neutral and leave it like that.

Tsp asked me to rethink my opinion about the issue and I did.

My overall assessment of the situation is (boiled down):
- the issue is from the ancient (in internet terms) past
- there has been no other issue since
- there is no concrete proof, just assumptions and interpretations
- the circumstances under which QS dug up an old post as well as the behavior[2] after the rating was left, indirectly removed (BadBear removing QS from DT) and reinstated (TC adding QS) along the several[1] ratings make me question whether this is personal or not.

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.


[1] @QS Im not sure whats wrong with that word, but you left 3 ratings, as QS, as ACCTSeller (now removed) and as FunFunnyFan.
[2] Both sides seem to be locked in some sort of vendetta now. This is does effect other threads and posts.

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, tspacepilot named his bot "b0t" to trick the mechanism that awards money for posting into thinking that his bot was not actually a bot, and to trick anyone casually looking that he properly named his bot.

In other words, he agreed that any account that did not include the substring "bot" would not be using any kind of automation to post/chat. He did not honor this promise. 
He has a history of using bots to earn money from websites when doing such would be against the rules and fraudulent. I believe that stunna would consider someone using a bot to claim the faucet on PD from multiple accounts to be fraudulent. I would also say that faucet farming that occurs on PD is likely to somehow include the use of bots.

His inquiry is similar to a convicted rapist asking a victim of rape how the perpetrator got away with the crime against her.
You have this backwards. The TOS would have said something along the lines of that by accessing coin chat tspacepilot agrees that he will name any bot with the substring "bot".

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. 
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. I have spoken to a number of people regarding this matter who have expressed feat of being trolled if they were to speak on my support or to leave a negative rating against tsp despite their support for me.
Fair enough.
The bug (assuming he was telling the truth about this) is not the issue. The issue is that he agreed to name any bot with the substring "bot" and did not (then subsequently withdrew funds that he should not have).

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 (when he was posting from an account that did not include the substring "bot), when he was using a bot. He also routinely said that TF was lying when in this case that does not appear to be the case.

I don't think he thinks of it as fraudulent. I don't either. Using a bot to automate boring tasks isn't fraud.


I don't think so. I'm interested in all kinds of scams. Not because I want to be scammer, but because I want to understand how they work. I find them interesting, and I find that understanding them is a good first step to being prepared to defend against them too. You seem to be condemning him for asking questions and being interested in the subject.


I don't think so.

"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"

He ran a bot, aiming to provide a service to fellow chatters. The bot earned a small amount of commission for being active on the site. That's not fraud, even if the T&C said that bots had to have "bot" in their name and his didn't.


No, I wouldn't. How did he attempt to intimidate you?


No. I don't really trust anyone with anything. I very rarely have to. I'm in the fortunate position of having a good trust rating here, and so when I trade with people they are almost always willing to go first. I don't think I would hold it against him that one of his first attempts at writing asynchronous code had a bug in it, or that he was unable to come to a resolution about it with TF.


My gut feeling is that he would. But I'm not about to test it out. I have no need to. You'll notice I haven't left feedback about his trustworthiness. That's because I have no experience of him in that regard.


I'm not aware of him having lied about anything. Is there some example you can quote?


"Hero member" simply means that he's posted a lot doesn't it? I don't see why that implies anything about trustworthiness, in either direction.

Kindly point to a rule regarding only being able to leave one trust rating per person and it will be addressed (again). (there is no such rule)

I had made a post in one of tspacepilot's threads, however I was unable to locate it after a brief search. The tl;dr version was that the issue that ACCTseller left a negative rating for was something that did not warrant an overall negative rating, however it was something that was appropriate to warn others about when dealing with tspacepilot while the issue that I left a negative from this account from was something that warranted a negative trust score.

not really aiming to get into the discussion itself, since I really don't care about tsp, but I haven't seen a comment from you on the neg ratings you were giving with sockpuppets like ACCTseller.

at the time of giving your rating to tsp for example,  afaik it wasnt public knowledge those were sockpuppets of you and you never disclosed that fact without being pressured.

I do think that is very shady/malicious behaviour that should be dealt with accordingly, though I'm not sure if there are any rules on that topic, like only one rating per living entitiy allowed.

would be nice if you could try to explain that a little.

I would agree that TF was quoting the entire amount that tspacepilot withdrew, however I am unsure that the amount he withdrew due to the bot was only a small fraction of what he withdrew. I would also say that it would be entirely inaccurate to say that he earned anything due to a malfunctioning bot. If you wanted to run a bot on coin chat, you were suppose to have the substring bot appended to the end of your username in order to prevent that username from earning any money, however tspacepilot named the account the bot was posting from wikib0t, and I would find it hard to believe that it was a mistake to name it this. I am not sure what tsp was talking about when he said his bot was stuck on a loop, however this was not the abuse, his abuse was the fact that he used a bot on an account that did not have the substring bot appended (although it is possible that the loop is what caused him to get caught).

Additionally, up until now, tsp has claimed that he is completely innocent. He has repeatedly said that I am wrong about him and that I was taking the words of a known liar:

I stopped quoting tspacepilot after about halfway through this thread. There are many others in both this thread and in others that I did not quote.

I would make it very clear that if tspacepilot did in fact use a bot to withdraw money from coin chat (regardless of the amount) then I am not wrong. Period. The issue of if tspacepilot's actions are something that warrants a negative rating is separate (and will be addressed below).

I would ask, if tspacepilot has lied about fraudulently withdrawing any money in the past (I believe that he has), then why should his word be trusted regarding the magnitude of how much he withdrew because of his bot?
I would dispute the fact that his bot accidentally earned any amount. The fact that he named his bot b0t shows that him earning money with his bot was very much intentional. People have scammed on here for well under a dollar (likely with the hope of being able to scam multiple times, which would add up), and scamming for a small amount does not make it any less wrong (as mentioned above, I doubt his claim that all he earned was a few thousand satoshi).

Tspacepilot was also inquiring as to how people abuse the faucet on Prime Dice here:
I believe this shows that he is interested in doing similar things in the future (e.g. using automation to receive money from websites that he should not be receiving.

What tspacepilot did was fraud, when he was originally called out on this fraud, he tried to get out of it by twisting around words and claiming that trust ratings are not appropriate if a trade did not take place within the forum.....this was instead of attempt to return the money that he received that he should not have.

Furthermore when he was called out on his fraud, he responded with intimidation and trolling. Would you consider someone to be trustworthy if after you left them a negative rating, they started trolling both you and JD (without any substance other then the fact that you left an "unjust" rating)?

Knowing that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew some amount of money from coin chat, and knowing that he lied about it, would you trust him with a small amount of money, say 4BTC? What about an amount similar that was claimed by TF that tspacepilot stole, say 0.5BTC? What about half that amount, say .25BTC? What if there was a way that would guarantee that you are in fact speaking to tspacepilot but had no way to prove your agreement (e.g. only you would know that you got scammed), would you trust him with any of the above amounts?

What do you think would happen if you accidentally sent any of the above amounts to tspacepilot? What about a greater amount? Do you think he would quickly return the money?

Are any of the above answers impacted on the fact that you know that tspacepilot withdrew money from coin chat that he was not entitled to? Does the fact that tspacepilot lied about withdrawing money from coin chat numerous times affect any of the above answers?

I think a lot of people would trust a hero member who they know is the original owner of their account with .25BTC (I don't think tspacepilot has been sold), but I do not think it would be smart to trust tspacepilot with that small of an amount.

TF seems to have been quoting the whole amount that tsp withdrew, but only a small fraction of that was due to the malfunctioning bot.

You reaction to his bot accidentally earning a tiny amount of dust seems way over the top. How do you justify leaving multiple angry trust ratings for this? I think overall your contribution to the trust system is a net positive, but in this case it feels to me like it's borderline abusive.

TC should maintain his trust list and remove any user who abuses his/her power. I don't want QS to be removed from default trust list because he does a good job and I think that's why TC is not willing to remove him. Maybe TC can talk with QS but the best he can do is either tell QS his opinion or remove QS from his trust list. Latter is probably not gonna happen.

See below about QS' multiple feedbacks.


I agree. IIRC, his explanation was that tsp does not deserve a negative trust score because of that feedback but still deserves negative feedback. IMHO, if he thinks his score should not be affected, that means that action does not deserve a negative feedback.

I suggest him to change negative feedback from QS to neutral and sum up other negative feedback in 1 neutral feedback and delete negative feedbacks.