Bitcoin Forum

With Brave getting decent traction and couple of big boys (including Wikipedia) signing up recently - it's kind of strange to see BTCTalk not yet being verified as publisher.

The overlap of Brave and BTCTalk users must be pretty big - so there's definitely great potential for extra, non-trivial revenue from tips and auto-contributions. All for the one time effort of verifying.

I understand prevailing anti-altcoin sentiment, but such earnings (in BAT tokens) could be converted to BTC propping its price ;)

I'm sure there are plenty of good ways to spent extra funds ie. on hiring more mods (or for increasing rewards for current ones), fighting spam, or just community contest etc.

Just a suggestion.



https://i.imgur.com/fkqysV6.jpg

Theymos will not risk his personal info to apply the KYC verification just to get those rewards from brave.

No.
There are lots of reasons why not, I guess this is one people won't pick up on too much:
Market economics. You are so desperate to pump your kleptocurrency du jour you are willing to defy rationality.
Your stupid bats would be ever less valuable.

edit for those interested in researching this shit you could do worse than starting here https://archive.is/GElE9
https://twitter.com/J9Roem/status/940311559426985985
https://twitter.com/J9Roem/status/942857701662609409
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rctxZWPi6A&t=7745s

He's not anonymous you know, and, to my understanding, he/forum complies with US laws so it's not like he's compromising anything + you don't submit any personal info to verify as publisher. Although you'd need to verify personal or business details with Uphold to withdraw/convert (currently they're the only ones processing payments for brave).

Much bigger entities bothered to do it (recently Wikipedia), and I wouldn't be surprised if BTCTalk had better earning potential.

Brave and their shit token are terrible. I would avoid getting involved with it. This pajeet revenue is unnecessary.

---

I've never supported their Chromium-based garbage and have been interested in flagging them ever since this garbage system was introduced. No time to look around yet though.

The "privacy" browser demands kyc for publishers to receive their cryptocurrency
I think this incoherence is enough reason for theymos to avoid supporting such project.
And this is a Bitcoin forum. This forum has more than enough bitcoins, there is no reason to risk the forum and theymos' reputation supporting such a project

You do realise that your post has zero substance other than "I don't like it"? BAT being garbage or not is irrelevant to the topic anyway, it has value - that's what matters.

Stop promoting shady shit such as BAT. Anything Chromium based is inherently never going to be as good as non-Google-injected software. He might as well give his parents names and daily routines to Google directly. BAT should have never existed, not the token nor the browser. The alternatives are much better despite being much smaller.

But MUH, you do realise that your post has zero substance? OP is an ignorant wanker hoping to score some cheap-ass merits. Maybe some of those generous-givers that throw merit at low-valued garbage such as Loyce might reward him for this. Theymos has sacrificed enough by introducing that half-arsed garbage called Grin.

---

Law doesn't excuse ignorance. Maybe flags shouldn't. ::)

Looks like lauda is back from Summer holidays  :D

@OP

I guess that he dont will be doing the verification for Brave .
Anyway i dont like this browser Brave and dont like the BAT, i tryd it but its for the trash can.

OK? How's that a reason not to accept/sell tokens from the ones who do use it?


>Getting this triggered over forum post
You do have some issues don't you? Seriously, take regular breaks from internet sometime. Not even joking.

If I want to be private while browsing on the Internet, I will use Tor Browser as alternative to Brave browser. In fact, I used both of them but stopped using Brave months ago (around the time they asked for KYCs to receive BAT tokens). I agree with you that such the incoherence in their 'slogan' and their development activities and promotions recently are not good for their reputation.

There are still people who do KYCs just to earn BAT tokens from Brave browser and it is easily understandable because there are lots of people use Google Chrome or derivatives from Chrome and Google-related applications without fear of losing personal information.

Yes. Supporting or standing-by evil makes you no better than the evil itself.

Seriously, fuck-off and stop shitposting with your signature elsewhere. This thread is worthless; not that anyone has agreed with you. Only BAT bagholders might come to voice their support, that's about it. Cancer, you and BAT both are.

Meaning you support of FED/US Gov when accepting US$? Meaning you supported/endorsed every project/person you took BTC from? Is that your honest policy or just bullshit you came up with for the sake of replying because your ego won't let you to let it go?


Don't ask me to fuck-off. Just walk away. It's that easy. Get some fresh air. It's nice.

Non sequitur. Your pathetic excuse of a meat-bag can't even create a single valid argument for your own case.

Royally fuck off. You're an undesirable, just like BAT is. Were it desirable, it would have been added already. Unless thermos really needs the money, he needs to be out of his (flawed) mind to agree with this suggestion. Due to your sig.-based shitposting, I will have to introduce my ad naseum mode on this thread. Maybe The-One-Above-All will support your case. :)

Poor come back. You seemed much smarter back in a days.


Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

I don't get validation from internet forum. I hardly ever post here nowadays and am not in sig campaign. How about you?

Do you have anything to say to support your argument or are you just going to keep going solely off-topic? It's bad enough that you're a sig. spamming shitposter. There have been zero argument supporting this other than 'extra revenue', but were that a sole valid argument for anything then BAT being a choice is really terrible anyway. Just go back to the cave you crawled out of and get a proper job. You can thank me later.

There's a massive difference between complying with US laws and sending all the details necessary to steal your identity and ruin your life to some dodgy crypto exchange. Uphold demand your name, address, social security number, a picture of your passport and a selfie. Can you vouch for the security they are using to protect this information and documents? Even the biggest exchanges can't be trusted - Binance have been hacked for user's KYC documents, and Coinbase were selling user's details without their knowledge or consent. Why should we trust Uphold?

The forum has at least 1,250 BTC in storage according to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155000.0. I would be very surprised if theymos risked his identity for the sake of a couple of hundred dollars worth of BAT.

If it isn't already, then BAT will (with a likelihood of 99%) sell all of the data that it has gathered on anyone. It (therefore, also theymos) will be "anonymized" so it will all be fine. ::) Uneducated imbeciles like OP are everywhere.

I also don't find it so strange. Such a move could be seen as a validation fro BAT. It could also boost BAT (which could be exploited on exchanges).
And what would be the benefit for Bitcointalk? Peanuts? Just compare it with the benefit for BAT.

If by couple hundred you meant 11.50$ than I'm with you  :)
@OP
Browser itself is nice, everything else is a spit in the face of satoshi and us, anons.
Besides, this clunky token won't disappear over night, it will sit there and wait, as long as it takes.
Someday (hopefully not) in the time of despair, theymos will manage I presume.  

Extra revenue IS my only argument. Seriously, how did you get this dumb? Sold account?

---

I don't think Jimmy Walsh (?) from Wikipedia (or other big site operators) was forced to submit his passport/selfie to Uphold. I'm not sure is there any corporate entity behind operating this forum, but I don't expect Theymos would run it in his sole, private name, that wouldn't make sense. Plus, BTCTalk is big enough to make separate arrangements with Brave (ie. maybe even skip Uphold altogether and receive tokens directly). BTCTalk =/= Average Joe.

So again, logic is: 1) free extra, passive revenue. 2) if much bigger sites have done it, then so can BTCTalk.

There isn't.

This claim is a lie[1]. There is no such thing as free revenue. Anyone that has any economic background will flap (yes, flap) you in the face for claiming such nonsense. The trade-off for this revenue is very high.

If bigger people have murdered others, then so can you? This is how you try to formulate arguments. It's ridiculous; are you < 14y by any chance? What's next?

---

[1] Stop spreading misinformation. Worthless and wrong opinions such as the ones that you have are fine, but outright lying isn't. Stop.

Quoted for reference.

I said a few hundred dollars because I'm sure there are plenty of users on this forum who do use Brave under the mistaken assumption that it is good for security, privacy, fingerprinting, or fewer ads, when in reality it performs poorly for all those things.

I'm sure Brave would jump at the chance. This arrangement will be far more profitable for them than it would be for the forum.

What's stopping users from just selling their BAT and donating BTC to the forum?
https://bitcointalk.org/donate.html

But Pajeet is just trying to help sir theymos to have additional income? What's wrong ???

----

@Pawel7777
Seriously, You are trying to connect the forum to the 100% garbage brave browser?  You gotta be kidding. Brave browser is a very shady project and of course the team member. They have an insane referral commission that will hurt real investors of the token.

Finally. Bitcointalk.org doesn't support any altcoin.

Theymos is married to bitcoin already.

MUH $12 sir, extra free revenue. :D

This isn't entirely true, what about Grin? Quite a flawed experiment it is, but still better than its alternative Beam or whatever it was called.

- A lot of extra steps. If you can't tip instantly - you won't tip at all.
- Time - withdrawing from browser is not instant.
- Fees (Uphold conversion fees/BTC tx fees) average tip or auto-contribution will likely be few $ worth tops, so not worth it.
- [can be wrong here] Users don't need to be KYC verified to earn BAT and send tips or auto-contributions
- Auto-contributions - your earnings are automatically distributed to verified publishers proportionately to the time you spent on each site. So everything happens in a background.

From own experience - I received 20 BAT grant yesterday + some ad revenue, it's too trivial to withdraw/exchange. Decided to send few tips around, tried BTCTalk, but no luck, so send to others.

https://www.cryptopolitan.com/brave-users-face-forced-kyc-on-external-bat-withdrawals/
Sounds very lovely, privacy-oriented and secure. ::) One-two-step, and malicious intent.

this ain't BATcointalk

I understand you point of view @OP but I really doubt that theymos will care about such things. There are zero possibilities.

Won't it be a lot of extra steps to verify on Brave, register for Uphold, link the two, monitor the BAT account, process withdrawals, manually sell for BTC, and transfer the BTC to the forum?

Won't it take time to transfer BAT from Brave to Uphold, sell for BTC, and transfer BTC to the forum?

Won't there be fees for withdrawing BAT, trading for BTC, and withdrawing the BTC, which the forum wouldn't have to pay if you just donated directly?

Won't someone from the forum (probably theymos) have to submit to the risky and  invasive KYC procedures?

Right. So you don't want to spend the time or assume the risk of doing any of those things, but you want the forum to do them instead? In exchange for, as I said before, giving Brave and BAT some great free publicity. I can just see the headlines now from the crypto "media" - "World's largest bitcoin community endorses BAT. Next stop - the moon!"

After reading this topic i still don't understand what exactly it is that this would add.

Users with the extension could tip the user (theymos) who verified the bitcointalk.org domain name? Is that all there is to it? Because that's already possible, isn't it.

Wait, where is this money coming from? "Auto-Contributions"...? Does the Brave browser embed some sort of ads client-side into your browser which you get paid for viewing, or..?
If so, that sounds like a stupid business model, if not for the security implications alone, i doubt it is economically sustainable (i can already foresee 1 small botnet depleting the entire BAT network, but i guess this is prevented due to KYC?)

and furthermore, if that's the case, i don't see what Bitcointalk has or would have to do with it. (Will Bitcointalk get a share of the client-sided ads, or implement ads server-side for Brave clients? Is that it?)

A multi millionaire forum would risk its reputation for extra revenue? Supporting an altcoin which could become a scam in a near future?

You should always try to balance extra revenue with risks involved. Not every extra revenue is welcome.
Do you think it would be good to have all kind of Google ads here? Theymos could do that and receive lots of extra revenue x for example. Why doesn't he do it? Because it is against forum principles. Like your idea.

And it would risk forum's reputation and theymos' as well.

For example, let's suppose you have a job. If you start working elsewhere for an extra revenue, it is a bad idea if it put your current job at risky. Simple as that. Specially for a few pennies.

Not sure what you're trying to do here. I pointed out advantage of tipping/contributing Vs. withdrawing tokens -> converting to BTC -> donating (from perspective of Brave user). You're talking about actions that publishers have to do only once, then you just sell whenever you want to.

Again, if verification would require Theymos to share his personal details with untrusted 3rd party and he's not OK with it - then it's obviously a no-go. But, as I already said, I don't think the process is the same for popular websites and for average Joes. Do you really think Uphold required Wikipedia execs to submit their passports and selfies?


LOL. This forum is completely unknown outside of crypto-community and they already have publishers ranked way above this forum. "BTCTalk verified for Brave rewards" won't be newsworthy even for crypto-related news portals.

---

Someone is getting those tips and contributions and it's just down to whether Theymos is willing to pick them up or not.

Your wording is incorrect: It's either 'is going to become' or 'already is'. Read o_e_l_e_o 's posts. OP is essentially untrustworthy because of this request or just outright stupid. I'm fine with whatever he's tiny brain is willing to accept.

Anyone with a little bit of morals wouldn't be willing to put their name to anything that they don't truly believe is worthwhile. Theymos, might not want this, but his support for coins would likely be taken with a lot of weight. Look at  Grin being implemented for forum payments their thread started to explode, and we saw how many users who hadn't even heard about it before become involved with it.

I'm not going to discuss the projects details with reputation, and whether its a well run project or not, but lets assume that brave would be paying theymos. Theymos adopting Brave publicly would probably benefit them more than the payments to him would.

This. Theymos, or Bitcointalk, in general, has a huge user/follower base. First, I am 100% certain that theymos would reject BAT's unnecessary "KYC" procedure that you have to complete. Considering the fact that he even did not move a finger when GDPR was implemented, on top of that, a coin has to be a worthwhile thing for him to invest his support. Like he did for Grin.

Do you really think that theymos would be risking his reputation and the forums reputation to deal with a shit project which will probably end up hurting those that invest? Just for a couple of pennies when the forum is already earning more than enough money to cover expenses for another 20 years if not more?

Bitcointalk should not endorsed any other crypto than BITCOIN. Stick to Satoshi's vision dude.

No idea, because I have never and will never use Uphold. Most exchanges will still require some form of verification even for business accounts, otherwise it would be a very easy way to circumvent anti money laundering laws/protocols. Still, if that's your argument, the onus is on you to provide proof of that being the case, not on me to disprove your unsupported claim.

I mean, yes? I couldn't tell you what the biggest motoring or gaming forums in the world were, because I'm not a part of those communities, but I'm sure they are massive and much bigger than Bitcointalk. That's kind of how forums work.

I don't think Satoshi would be against supporting other projects that deserved attention but Brave is not one of them. Brave has had some good marketing but its not any better than the other trash inside the altcoin subforum. This forum is called BITCOINtalk.org though and should try to keep primarily to Bitcoin its up to others if they want to make bravetalk.org

Of course satoshi wouldn't be against supporting other projects.  He worked on Namecoin and understood how open source projects work.  Would he want this Bitcoin forum actively integrating other cryptocurrency projects?  Who knows...  The better question might be, does it matter what satoshi wanted? 

Nope not in my opinion. We have long moved on  from Satoshi and although he lay the foundations of the forum and future outlook we have already began to move away. Theymos is the one that is guiding this boat now and all that matters is the decisions he makes.

He wouldn't, but the one mentioned in specific here by OP he sure-as-hell would.

It does not; it isn't even an opinion. Science, not damned religion and authority fallacies.

That might be true but a lot of people get caught up on following "satoshi's vision" like hes some sort of god so its interesting you would mention religion. They seem to forget the short comings that Satoshi had and label him as this all perfect god  being which the fact is he/she/they were just like you and me. I don't think a forum vision has been mentioned in its history and I'm sure we will be seeing different cryptocurrencies mentioned by the administrators of the forum and probably sometimes endorsed by them like Grin.

So, it's all about the money, right?

Theymos already made it clear that the forum doesn't need the extra money, if he would want more funding he could easily start accepting ICO ads for the forum advertising, which he doesn't because :


Where does BAT stand? All over the place!!!

Shitcoin peddling in Meta?

Have the company behind Brave/BAT relocate to someplace more business-friendly so that they may forgo their KYC/AML BS and you'll have won half the battle in the quest of not being outright dismissed.

That looks to be the reason why this post was posted to advertise brave? Because a forum with over 1000 BTC in its reserves is not going to be interested in under $12 in rewards it just does not make sense to suggest this without being involved in the project itself surely?

Lol

Some moderator please  move this topic to altcoin discussion board, where it belongs.

When the acceptance of Grin was announced for some forum payments it received some backlash despite being a okay project but just think if something like Brave which has a gimmick approach which has everyone excited but lacks any real worthwhile features would be accepted? The backlash would be huge and the "payout" would not be worth it for me to accept but for theymos to accept with the forum reputation on the line is crazy to even suggest.
As far fetched as the request is  it is a feature request for the forum so belongs in meta.

It wouldn't be so bad idea, if not KYC. I have no idea how much BAT Bitcointalk would be able to make, but probably it wouldn't be worth theymos to sell his personal data for it. We all know theymos views about KYC :). Some people above are saying that Brave is shady company, well I don't know enough about them to avree or disagree. But there is no fire without smoke.
And if theymos would want to make more revenue from Bitcointalk, he simply would add more add slots or increase price of it, add more paid memberships like Copper instead of using third part altcoin project with KYC requirements.

BAT doesn't even have a proper ANN thread here, does it?

Yes, that's true, someone creates ANN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1947864.0) but it's clearly not from BAT team.

@OP
I think, answer from members is enough to you. With current Bitcoin asset from donator, Bitcointalk still can operate for a long time without claiming BAT.

Yes, of course Satoshi would not be against other crypto adoption as he has worked with other developments too when he was active. But IF he was here watching the current altcoin market with scams, ponizs, MLMs eating people's money under the name of digitalizing currency, I am sure he would have denied to support any of this crap.

Can't flag it if it doesn't have an ANN, that's the idea behind it.  :)