Re: @theymos is it true that you forced OG to remove Laudas tagg ?
I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:
Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably
cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.
The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.
Lauda doesnt usually lose his cool, he usually just tags his critics and trolls them when they complain. If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.
Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably
cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.
I dont think OgN has any reasonable trust concerns about him by the reasonable person standard. OTOH, there are concerns about Lauras history that you acknowledge (you describe them as grey as opposed to red it should not be unreasonable for someone to have a different opinion than you).
It seems to me that Laudas rating against OgN was to silence a critic while OgNs rating against lauda was to warn others about what he reasonably believes to be untrustworthy behavior. It is for this reason that it would be fair to pressure lauda to remove his rating against OgN if OgN kept his rating in tact.
I would repeat what I previously stated regarding the matter:
Quote from: QS
would not have removed my rating against lauda under any circumstances that doesnt involve substantial evidence of his evidence.
One can reasonably compare lauda to TradeFortress. If my memory serves me correctly regarding what I have read about the inputs scam, TF refunded the majority of money deposited into inputs, refunded the entire deposit amount of large depositors (investors), and only a small percentage (0%?) of small deposits under a certain threshold. I also believe that there were claims TF was using the trust system to silence people critical of him until he was ultimately removed from being on DT1.
In the escrow transaction that lauda was involved in (that was non-transparent), a mixture of bitcoin and various altcoins were deposited into escrow that was strongly implied to be 2-of-3 multisig with 3 escrows each holding one of the private keys. The altcoins were converted into bitcoin via exchanges, however the amount sent back to escrow was well below what would be expected, based on the *low* of exchange rates in the several time periods after the various alts were deposited into exchanges. The discrepancy was in excess of a million dollars based on exchange rates at the time. I also strongly believe that the private keys required to sign the various transactions to spend the money in escrow were controlled by one person.
The project ended up failing and those who invested were due refunds. IIRC refunds were given based on how many tokens were purchased. After the ICO sale, and after the altcoins were converted into bitcoin, nearly all altcoin values declined substantially, so the ICO investors likely ended up in a better position than if they owned the tokens and if they had owned their various altcoins they used to invest in the project, both even after accounting for the discrepancy. As such, less people complained than would otherwise be expected. However it still appears money was stolen. The majority of money was returned to investors.
When there are million dollar discrepancies in transactions, a promise for a similar situation not to happen again is insufficient. It is necessary to leave a negative rating warning others about the incident. Period. If TF promised not to offer deposit services that gets hacked again, it would be wholly inappropriate to remove his negative ratings. If Mark Kaapolis (or however his name is spelled the person in charge of Gox) returned saying that he promises not to lose a billion dollars worth of customer money, it would be inappropriate to remove the ratings warning others against depositing money with him. Lauda and friends currently use the trust system to silence their critics.
The primary difference between lauda and TF (and Gox) is that TF admitted he didnt return all the money owed to depositors. Lauda on the other hand refused to admit not all money was returned and refused to answer any questions about what happened to the money. Perhaps this is a lesson to scammers that if you refuse to answer questions about any missing money, you wont be held accountable for any missing money.
I would rather be labeled a scammer (incorrectly) and excluded up the wazoo than be prohibited from warning others about his previous scammy behavior.
One can reasonably compare lauda to TradeFortress. If my memory serves me correctly regarding what I have read about the inputs scam, TF refunded the majority of money deposited into inputs, refunded the entire deposit amount of large depositors (investors), and only a small percentage (0%?) of small deposits under a certain threshold. I also believe that there were claims TF was using the trust system to silence people critical of him until he was ultimately removed from being on DT1.
In the escrow transaction that lauda was involved in (that was non-transparent), a mixture of bitcoin and various altcoins were deposited into escrow that was strongly implied to be 2-of-3 multisig with 3 escrows each holding one of the private keys. The altcoins were converted into bitcoin via exchanges, however the amount sent back to escrow was well below what would be expected, based on the *low* of exchange rates in the several time periods after the various alts were deposited into exchanges. The discrepancy was in excess of a million dollars based on exchange rates at the time. I also strongly believe that the private keys required to sign the various transactions to spend the money in escrow were controlled by one person.
The project ended up failing and those who invested were due refunds. IIRC refunds were given based on how many tokens were purchased. After the ICO sale, and after the altcoins were converted into bitcoin, nearly all altcoin values declined substantially, so the ICO investors likely ended up in a better position than if they owned the tokens and if they had owned their various altcoins they used to invest in the project, both even after accounting for the discrepancy. As such, less people complained than would otherwise be expected. However it still appears money was stolen. The majority of money was returned to investors.
When there are million dollar discrepancies in transactions, a promise for a similar situation not to happen again is insufficient. It is necessary to leave a negative rating warning others about the incident. Period. If TF promised not to offer deposit services that gets hacked again, it would be wholly inappropriate to remove his negative ratings. If Mark Kaapolis (or however his name is spelled the person in charge of Gox) returned saying that he promises not to lose a billion dollars worth of customer money, it would be inappropriate to remove the ratings warning others against depositing money with him. Lauda and friends currently use the trust system to silence their critics.
The primary difference between lauda and TF (and Gox) is that TF admitted he didnt return all the money owed to depositors. Lauda on the other hand refused to admit not all money was returned and refused to answer any questions about what happened to the money. Perhaps this is a lesson to scammers that if you refuse to answer questions about any missing money, you wont be held accountable for any missing money.
I would rather be labeled a scammer (incorrectly) and excluded up the wazoo than be prohibited from warning others about his previous scammy behavior.