OK all good and I'll close the thread (if I figure out how to  , as you can tell I'm noob at this, sorry)

Again, truly impressed by the level of attention this is receiving, never expected such responsiveness, which is a good thing !

Allow me to add the steps that should happen BEFORE the ones per your guidance Ecuamobi:

- if a DT member believes there is reason to do a negative vote, he reaches out in PM to the project team
- if he doesn't get feedback in an acceptable timeframe, he checks with other channels to reach the team or checks with the community
- if he feels ignored or obtains feedback that leaves him with no other option than to do a negative vote, he first reflects about the impact of the negative vote (ref the red warning visible to entire community and new users)
- if he concludes the facts are leaving no doubt that things are pointing at a potential scam and a red warning is valid, he lists the facts clearly

And from there we roll into your guidance for the project team receiving a negative vote, to which I agree entirely and now understanding how DT voting works, will be applied in the future.

Again, pls read the initial thread question at the end and consider if it is something to be looked at further, to be clear I launched this thread questioning how you/we can limit the impact if the above steps are not respected by a DT member.

OK, really appreciate the swift/positive feedback and suggestions and we'll look into clarifying that 10yrs part.

I launched this thread with an example but it was still launched with the question "how do you prevent potential abuse from a Default Trusted member", from here I will leave matter experts to decide if that is a valid question or not and what is the answer to it.

Think we're on the same page, I did start the thread because of suspected abuse of the Default Trusted level.

Apart from that 'collective' 10yrs of experience there's nothing in the negative vote to question, there isn't much there really.

In the same spirit that things don't need unnecessary escalation I offered TMAN to reach out to us with questions, over PM instead of negative vote with quite a big impact

Apart from the vote and content an origin etc, I still believe it's a weak spot in the Default Trusted model for someone to think about, for us/me this is a closed case for now but others may be facing the same problem.

Maybe you noticed but support and getting questions answered is likely more efficient on DERO's discord (has a specific channel for technical questions) or telegram channels, please post your questions in one of those.

Thanks, your swift action is much appreciated !

The warning message is still there it seems but guess that should go away soon.

EDIT > it's gone

Hi TMAN - as mentioned, we really don't want to go into a MUD fight and you're welcome to ask questions anytime. We just want to understand how such a situation can be avoided from the forum perspective. You can contact me on DM if there's anything that caused you to post that negative vote with such a big impact.

I was advised by o_e_l_e_o to start a thread on suspecting a Default Trust member abusing his/her position.

The DERO community was shocked to suddenly see this big RED warning banner at the top of our project thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2525508.0

Checking on what was driving this, we came to find that the owner of the thread got a negative vote by a Default Trusted member.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1378974 (click through the Trust link).

We think that this single negative vote from TMAN, apparently being a default trust member, is at cause of our project being marked unrightfully as potential scam.

The arguments in TMAN's negative vote is the following :
DO NOT TRUST THIS PROJECT
REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
3 devs with 10 years plus blockchain experience each?
really? fucking really? Satoshi and theymos got together, bought Hal back from the dead and developed a shitcoin with a whitepaper written by a 4 year old.
DO NOT INVEST
DO NOT INVEST
DO NOT INVEST

I'm part of the community board of this project and we don't have the slightest idea what the origin of this negative post may be, apart from mocking with the 10yrs and mentioning there is refusal to answer questions, there is nothing factual or anything we can help this person with. This person can ask questions on our community channels anytime.

We do not intend to start a mud fight but detect a sensitive and fragile weakness in the DefaultTrusted status. From this member's profile it seems he/she is linked to a tradingbot type of business which makes us assume that the intent of the negative vote is mainly focussed at damaging the reputation of the project and in turn taking benefit of things. We are happy to invite this person to go into a dialogue with us on the reasons for his negative vote on the project but first want to have this negative warning sign removed from our project.

If we look at TMAN's trust overview https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=98986 (go to trust link) it's obvious this member has quite an active but also questionable reputation, I refer to a very very long list of both negative and positive comments.

Can someone please advise how to go about, we would like to know how we can avoid this type of practices and abuse of the Default Trusted status.

What if there is bad intent and abuse of the DefaultTrust level reached. Such a member can at will mark/FUD projects without any countermeasure ? Let's say a DefaultTrust member has reached this status by collecting votes from his/her community but has bad intent and uses it to FUD/damage other projects, who and how can such a bad intent be stopped ? If anyone expresses a negative vote against such practice, does he/she needs to have some higher merit level before the vote is taken into account ? Can the victim/targetted member also be upvoted by his community to counter such an 'elite' negative vote, do they need to have higher voting levels ? 

classic ?

asking for 10m$ upfront to develop custom asic is considered 'the proper way' ? after asking pre-payments for hardware that was way too late too market ... think not.

a lot of you guys will look at these posts in 2 years from now, when all crypto will run on ASIC or FPGA and you will see how overconservative and shortsighted you were, trying to keep everything to GPU's, it's like KODAK making promotion for Polaroid when digital camera's were on the rise. You have just been caught up by technology and yes, that's maybe a sad thing but you all know, never fight a trend in this business.

It's a very smart decision and signs of vision for future and good management decisions. Of course you'll upset all the hobbyist GPU miners but they have plenty of other coins to work at. We'll tell in a couple of years if ASICs were a bad thing for crypto networks ...

can't believe my question was the last one asked ever on  - will move it to discord

Anyone any advice how to get payments completed from Antpool ?

I have the following :
2018-05-18 - 26BTM - paid
2018-05-19 - 15BTM - paying
2018-05-20 - 6BTM - paid
2018-05-21 - 21BTM : paying
2018-05-22 - 16BTM : paying
2018-05-23 - 16BTM : paid
2018-05-24 - 18BTM : paying
2018-05-25 - 13BTM : paid
2018-05-26 - 13BTM : paid
2018-05-27 - 7BTM : paid

So it seems very inconsistent and I have concerned those payments are stuck    - any advice ?

My (mac OSX) wallet got stuck at syncronizing, 150166/193850 and no higher, anyone any advise how to fix it ?

PS for DEV : I upgraded the wallet to 2.0.0 and the wallet gui > help > about the wallet confirms version 2.0.0 but the MAC top menu > B2B coin wallet > about B2B coin wallet gives me a popup window and showing version 1.0 (1)

I'm fairly new to mining etc so can someone explain to me:

- why do GPU enthousiast always complain they would love to mine coins but can't because of asics, if the aim is to get hold of some coins, why spend money on a rack of GPU's and mine for months in a row instead of just buying loads of coins for the same amount of money ? is it really all about the joy of mining with a GPU, as in a hobby-thing ?
- why are asics considered a risk for centralisation, if a GPU only pool would have the majority of hashrate, isn't that just the same risk for centralization ?

ELYA : they introduced a coin on top of their established ELYATEL business. In my opinion, one of the few altcoins with a very practical use to a large public (mobile phone roaming, huge potential), credible linkedin owner profile with solid business background, x50 easy in the next year.

Hi Serena & team DERO,

Apart from making a clear statement with Atlantis release that DERO prefers to go back to ASIC-resistance, is there a longer term business vision available for us, explaining how you will distinguish from all the other alts out there and bring volume/value ($) to the coin? If you look at the charts (go to https://coinlib.io/coin/DERO/DERO and select YTD), we can't ignore there is quite an important link of volume and price with ASIC's mining which, if I assume, will drop significantly after the Atlantis release ?

Just thinking ... when you consider Bitmain could propably have shaved 10-15USD of their production cost per unit (x3000 units?) by not using 2pcs high RPM fans but using some other cheaper fans, and they can now add 30% hashrate with a firmware update .... makes me think the B3 has a lot more hashing potential than currently announced.

I also noticed in one of the first B3 youtube demos how high the utility rate was on the status page ... utility rate as in how effective the miner works (miner status page, top middle). My B3 utility rate before the firmware upgrade was 0.9 or so, now it is at 1,13 ... the youtube move showed 9,7 if I recall well (https://youtu.be/aavqAi--Z7k @5:05)

So I think the B3 hardware can hash a lot more than what Bitmain is allow us to hash currently, if my assumptions are correct, they have a lot of control over all parameters that determine difficulty, network hashrate and as such the price ...