It is dirty if its serial number was marked as stolen or related to other crime. If you get it from the criminal then it makes sense it's taken away from you (besides other consequences). If you get it several months/"hands" afterwards then you're obviously innocent.
Something similar should apply for bitcoin.

This looks like your IP was blacklisted. Try a VPN or appeal as instructed on the screenshots

I agree on this, mainly because there was obviously a reason for them to be banned so I'd trust them (and their trust lists) less.

However I don't see why inactive users should be excluded. Their previous opinions/trusts/lists aren't less valid just because they're inactive. Maybe I'd trust their opinions/trusts/lists less if they were active but didn't get any merit during those 3 years.
If the change is to be done and the choose is between 2 or 3 distinct users then I'd vote for 2.

I have a few invitations for Proton Wallet. PM me your Proton email if anyone wants to try it. I'll give preference to high ranked users.

Thanks for another trade. No issues at all.

Hi,

I need those US$450 PayPal. Please send to the same address we traded before (confirmed via PM)
and let me know your BTC address. I'll send the same amount at preev rate

3344b5a288cb

I need US$1,500 PayPal:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2484986.msg25444077#msg25444077

(This is partially why I haven't been active here)

I have just published GalleryDroid in open beta. To get it you need to join the beta program here:
https://play.google.com/apps/testing/com.gallerydroid
and then download it from Google Play.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gallerydroid

The app has ads that can be removed with a one-time payment. I have 35 codes available to remove them for free. PM me to ask for one after installing the app.

The main idea of the app is to provide with features you'd normally expect in a photo gallery, except it works with any type of files. Some common galleries can be created automatically with a single tap:

• All my images
• All my videos
• All my PDF files
• All my images/videos/sounds received via WhatsApp or downloaded from Reddit/Facebook/Twitter/TikTok
• ...

You can also create more complicated galleries in advanced mode, for example one including PDF and EPUB files, smaller than 20MB, newer than one month, including the word "guide" in their name, stored in the folder "/books/".

After you define the gallery's rules, the app includes the files that match all those rules. The list is kept updated according to files being added or deleted to/from your device.

   

   

 


Please post any comments or suggestions here. I'll be ready to reply and to improve the app before the production release.

So, if what you say is true: you failed providing the offered service (exchanging my coins) so you held my coins for over 150 hours and then charged me all the fees.
After one hour of not being able to exchange the coins and seeing DOGE increased by over 10% you knew for sure the exchange was impossible. So why make me wait 149h more? Why ignore all my messages during that time?
You were unprofessional enough to fail making the exchange; irresponsible enough to hold my coins and ignore my messages for almost one week; and dishonest enough to charge me every fee caused by your errors instead of covering the loses caused by you, without even mentioning the huge lost of profit (more than BTC1) you caused me.

If what you say is not true (which I think is more probable): you saw DOGE increased a lot after the exchange so you decided to hold my coins for several days, sold my DOGE, kept the profit and sent my BTC back charging me every fee. If DOGE had gone down during those days I'm sure I would have received the DOGE instead of my BTC.

We'll never know for sure whether you scammed me or whether you were simply unprofessional, irresponsible and dishonest. In any case I'll never use your services again and would recommend anyone else to do the same.
Anyone interested can read more about this here. You should before deciding to use Changelly's services.

I like this suggestion very much, especially for the quoted part and also because "preventive" flags (Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.) can be too obvious to create a new thread on Scam Accusations.
Up until now I left negative trust to those users using their own thread as reference and that was enough. Since that can't be done anymore (because those threads are almost always locked or self-moderated) then more threads with obvious reasons will have to be created. A sub-section would help in that sense.

I'd like to see a "Flags" sub-section under Scam Accusations with different icons depending on what kind of flag that is and whether it has more support or opposition.

I'm sure you know what I mean. Your senses insults here and on most of your posts against me and others.
I'm not wasting more time with you. I should have stopped after your first lies.

You go back to senseless insults as usual 
I've clearly made my point on my previous posts of this thread.

You seemed to have missed everything I said. Re-read my previous posts, especially this part:


So you lie, avoid replying to main points, and accuse me of doing that?! Go away.

I feel I'm wasting my time with you.

Bottom line is you're not going to convince me and several others to let scammers freely scam. So unless you come up with an alternative to make things harder for them before they scam then we can't reach an agreement.
You can begin with these cases for example.

I does work, like in the example I gave.

Yes, over utilization and abuse is wrong. I think we should be less tolerant when there's obvious instances of people leaving negative when there's clearly no attempt to scam. This will be hard indeed. Prohibiting preventive negative trust completely would be hard too. The system would need to change a lot.

The blue part is a lie. Do not lie.
It represents a problem if too many negative ratings are left for insufficient reasons so they're diluted. We do agree on that point. You can't give arguments for one point (excess of unjustified negative trust is wrong) and conclude something different (preventive trust can't work). This, along with your lie, makes me want stop reading your posts.
Now, back to topic, scam can be reduced, as in the clear example I gave. It's impossible to eliminate it completely but it can be reduced.

I agree in general with the bold parts. I don't think fraud or scamming in general can be stopped. I never said that. I think it can be reduced with preventive negative trust and other means.
I absolutely disagree with the underlined part. Scam can be reduced and it is worth trying if we can reduce the number of people being scammed.

Yes, scammers can use a lot of tools, like the locking/self-moderated threads. That's why preventive negative trust is not the only thing we should do. We can ask things to change. This change, along with preventive negative trust, has proven to work reducing scams (not removing them completely of course).

If you have a better idea about how to teach them then post that instead of just attacking my idea with flawed arguments. I just hope it's not something in the lines "They deserve to be scammed" or "They will learn after the first scam"

No, exactly the oposite: I'm using clear examples where scams have been undoubtedly reduced by using preventive scams and other tools. You, on the other hand, have lied, have given arguments for one point to try and prove another one, have give weird comparisons that don't prove anything. So, no, the blue part here is a lie again. Do no lie.

Again, don't try to prove one point giving arguments for another one. These counterproductive effects are not produced by leaving preventive negative trust when clear scam signals are present. They're the effect of leaving too many negative trust for other, poorly justified reasons.


I think negative trust should be left only when:

• Somebody has scammed.
• Somebody is clearly trying to scam and clear signals are present, but not necessarily irrefutable proof. These clear signals can easily be missed by someone else, for example because the signals can be seen only by registered users, are present on another thread, some experience is required to identify the signals. So leaving that negative trust can help others to see the signals and can reduce scam.

Absolutely. Someone who tries to scam deserves negative trust and even (real) legal punishment.

I would agree to that too.

Again. I agree. I'm not sure if this is addressed to me. Read my previous post. I don't see how you'd think I disagree with this.


No, it's not. Just because I try and use negative trust to reduce scamming and you think it should be used to punish it only doesn't mean what I'm saying is horse shit. The fact someone disagrees with you doesn't make that opinion shit.

If it's abuse, then yes. If there are clear signals a user is trying to scam but not definitely proof then that negative trust can reduce scam.

Not always. For example, a lot of non-registered users have been scammed by new accounts creating locked and/or self-moderated threads with links to auto-buy sites. Of course, they didn't deliver anything after being paid.
Those non-registered users didn't see any warning threads or neutral ratings. That situation was improved a lot after the warning theymos added to threads created by users with negative trust. But of course that warning is shown only if those brand new users have negative trust.

Clear scamming signals are there: they are brand new accounts, they lock and self-moderate their threads, they post links to auto-buy links, most of the times (but not always) they get feedback from other brand new accounts (posted on a locked thread). But there's no absolute proof they are trying to scam. Leaving negative trust to them did prevent a lot of scams. Before, more than half of threads on that section were of that kind and there were a lot of "I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts here, posted by newbies after registering.
Now only a few threads of that kind are posted, a scammer who used that method (with brand new accounts) has said he's leaving the site and no more "I wish I read this warning thread sooner" posts have been seen.

So it's absurd to deny leaving preventing negative trust is usefull. The problem is trust should not be abused under that excuse.

Yes, it can be both. And yes, it's more difficult to trade for someone with negative trust. That's exactly why scamming can be reduced with preventive negative trust.

I don't think it's necessary those 2 descriptions are exactly the opposite, but I see your point.
What's the opposite of "You were scammed"? It would be "You were not scammed", but that's clearly not reason enough to leave positive trust. "You were not scammed after making a deal where the other person could have scam you" would be enough reason, and that's very similar to "had a successful trade".
The opposite of "you strongly believe that this person is a scammer" would be "you strongly believe that this person is not a scammer" or "you don't think this person will scam, even if given the chance". I'd like that description for positive trust, but in practice I don't think it's very different than "You trust this person".

So I don't think the description for negative trust should change. The description for the positive trust could change; I consider that less important.


So you think only people who have already scammed deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree. I think trust should be used to make things harder for people who are trying to scam too. Unfortunately that is subjective, but I don't see a better option.

I think people should leave negative trust only to users who scammed or when they strongly believe that person would scam if given the chance.
The inclusion of "strongly believe" gives enough room in my opinion. We should not leave negative trust if we don't honestly believe a person has scammed or will scam.

So I don't think the description should be changed to "You distrust this person" or similar.

Thanks! I've checked and tested your code and updated the OP and the script on openuserjs.org.