Topic: Wardrick account hacked---trust abuse resolution in sight (finally) - page 2. (Read 25345 times)

Original title: "How to contact tomatocage."  Unenlightening


The overarching theme, clearly, is ... it's obvious that ...  um ... do I get more than one guess?


Listen, don't take this the wrong way, but I might have to pass.


     "I understood at last the look in his eyes. He was insane."

Haha, that's so true. In this thread, all you needed to do is read the title every couple of days and you could follow the thread relatively well.

Except you've changed the title literally 20 times :s

@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:

1) reading the title
2) reading the OP
3) reading the thread

I realize this thread has gotten a little long, so perhaps only (1) and (2) are feasible, but go ahead and start there.  After that, you might try reading backwards from the end, in which case you'll find this message from me only 6 posts back.  I added some bold in this quote, I hope it helps.

Raging without a clue as to what's being said: an affliction that's almost endemic to bitcointalk

@tspacepilot re. OT: the topic being what, exactly? dogpile on Quickseller, now that it serves no purpose beyond humiliating him / rubbing salt in wound?

Given that quickseller is currently on a "long break" and given the current frequency of his posting, I wonder what it looks like when he's actually around.  Wow.

Okay, did anyone notice my post in this thread just about 5 posts back requesting that we stay on-topic here?

FTFY.

You're really trying too hard now.

Very interesting point anon newbie. Interesting point indeed.

Maybe and just maybe some of my alts are deserving positive trust, or maybe there are just a lot of scammers out to get blood.

Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller.
You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance).
Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not.
Correct?
flawless_victory.gif

Quickseller has repeatedly posted he will leave the forum as soon as he pays back his last collateral.

He stated yesterday that it will happen today at the latest.

What does that mean?

He'll be back here posting tomorrow. 

Mark my words. 

He/she is thinking wrong, I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). So he/she lost his/her mind, Quickseller take a hiatus....

In my opinion, the solution to all of this trust farming and related nonsense is to decentralize the trust system by removing "default trust" altogether.  People that don't want to set up their trust settings shoildn't have to do so.  And forcing the default trust list onto them has created a "standard trust" list, which means a central point of failure for those who want to game the system.  But alas, this is geting a bit off topic for this thread.  Here are some really interesting threads on the topic of improving the trust system via decentralization.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trim-or-eliminate-default-trust-1031791
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/replacing-defaulttrust-914641
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1163292

^^^ Especially interesting is the arguments of quickseller in those threads given the recent relevations concerning his own behavior.

---

But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section. 

The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller.  But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself.  At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick.  There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.

You have to understand -- Quickseller thinks accounts should each be treated as individual persons, and that the person controlling them is irrelevant. It's a bizarre point of view that is unlikely to be held by most people, but it's his story and he's sticking to it.

That's why the DT level 2 members should be removed and there should just be a level 1 with the mos trusted members (who shouldn't sell their accounts atleast). By having over 50 members in the list 2, any random guy can just buy a DT account and mark negative ratings while the person who has added him might not even know whether the account is sold. These DT members from list 2 then go about threatening others about their reputation.




The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON.

Nothing is impossible for Bitcointalk A Team!
*If the mechanics of banning the sale of bitcointalk accounts on bitcointalk are unclear, feel free to PM me.

Well, as far as i know quickseller used to sell dt accounts and they didnt receive neg rating or were removed from dt, so it´s obvious that quickseller would say its ok to sell accounts but its not, at least not dt accounts.

I would leave neutral feedback saying the account was sold on whatever date.

There seems to be very few "hard" rules here.  Many of the things that are impossible to enforce (like account selling)
aren't outright banned for that very reason.  If someone trustworthy like you were to publicly sell their account,
it would be at the minimum removed from DT and receive neutral feedback that its sold and probably a few
people would neg it too.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

21 million risked BTC, to be precise, then as they build trust based on the amount of BTC they were trusted with and didn't screw anyone out of it, that is subtracted as a negative number from the -21 million (ex. (-21000000)-(-5)=-20999995). Any risked and lost BTC negative rated as such will be added back as a negative number (ex. (-20999995)+(-5)=-21000000) . Unfortunately, there's no evidence required of BTC transfers, and no way to prove all the private keys involved in the transfers weren't exclusively controlled by the same person using different usernames.