We need to be very careful defining a troll. If a person presents an argument that you do not agree with then unless you can debunk it then it is not trolling.

Trolling is not so much of a worry as persons proliferating incorrect and misleading information that is observably proven incorrect or supporting those that do. Those are just slightly less damaging than scammers and way less detrimental to crypto than real trolls who are basically just piss takers.

@bones

I see nothing to say that he would be any more of a scammer than those that sound calm and reasonable. Scammers tend to be slick not be putting peoples backs up before they strike.

As despicable as I find r0ach's comments and blatant bigotry, I am torn about the use of the trust system in this way.  However, bones261 makes a really good point.  I'm a fairly trusting person, but I would have a hard time trusting people who spew hate such as r0ach does.

But that's not the whole deal, is it?  r0ach is accusing another member of attempting to scam the whole community, which is an allegation for which he can only provide circumstantial evidence.  That makes this a different type of situation.  Spreading misinformation about another member should never be tolerated.

@r0ach, if you have a suspicion about another member, feel free to share it, but don't make it sound like it's a proven fact when the only "evidence" that exists is "he said/she said."

 

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

Bitten off more than you can chew r0ach.

I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything.  I said that Bob was posting "hodl", "to the moon", and bull spam the entire time he was dumping $5 million worth of digital shitcoins on people.  This is factually true.  Then I post quotes of HIMSELF in chronological order showing how he was doing so.  It's objective, factual reality, and this scumbag Last of the V8s still sits here and claims I'm lying when Bob provided the evidence for it himself in quotes of his own words.  

Then Bob comes and says yesterday he sold nowhere near $5000 of the top and I post a quote of him saying he sold $1 million at $14.5k catching him in a lie yesterday.  I don't have any agenda against this particular person, I'm just highlighting the fact you're all (particularly people like Last of the V8s) nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.  Do you need those Bob quotes again?  I post something objectively true and Last of the V8s lies and files a scam report against me:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5117829.msg50053934#msg50053934

The problem with most of you people is that you have lied about things like "decentralization" so much you started to believe your own lies.  It's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  Transaction validators are always designed to centralize.  Now you act like you're in a religious cult and that anyone who challenges your FALSE beliefs is the bad one.  You're operating under the 'maybe tommorow' scam.  Maybe tomorrow a random autistic person will alter the codebase and change bitcoin from something designed to centralize with no fundamentals to actually working like the whitepaper claims.  Anyone who has studied these issues long enough knows it's not possible.

edit i see that is not the case

Since op brought him up, further examples of jbreher's disingenuousness
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/178336.msg50071754#msg50071754 v. https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/178336.msg50070092#msg50070092

Anyway, as to your lies, both of you, DT consensus is just that they don't merit negative trust.

before:



now:

He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules



so we seem to be stuck with him.

      Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
      I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
     Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
   

Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.