Bitcoin Forum

Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

I just have noticed that 1xbit has placed their bid for promoting them into bitcointalk ad space. Out of curiosity, I have tried to check whether their bid is valid or not. But I have not find any such rule where I can be sure that 1xbit bid is valid or not. Maybe I have missed?
Is 1xbit bid is valid? Or not? Any reference for that though I believe their bid is not valid.

I will not accept advertising for hex.win.These bids may be rejected - I'm waiting for more info.Current auction status:Slots BTC/Slot Person1 0.08 cat_rush **TENTATIVE5 0.08 DogecoinMachine3 0.08 sportsbet.io1 0.08 Dsdaq **TENTATIVE1 0.07 BetBTC(More than 9 slots are included above due to the possibility of one or both tentative bids being rejected.)The auction continues.

Bids from 1xbit will not be accepted.

And seems that 1xbit is still trying desperately to advertise here. Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...

Their sig campaign and review threads seem to be doing "well" though. Members of all ranks sacrificing their ratings for them ka-ching

Sometimes I wondering how much money 1xbet/1xbit spends for PR. I guess it should be tens of milions...

It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too. But as we can see their campaign goes on. Is there any explanation why that's not the case, what am I missing here? After all, those sigs are shown the forum.

It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too.

On the other hand, the forum's we don't moderate scams policy prevents him from meddling into what other people are advertising. 

It seems somehow logical to me that if theymos doesn't allow someone to advertise via banners (like in this case 1xbit), that their signature campaign gets banned too.

No ICOs^{[1] (#post_icodef)}, loggable mixers^{[2] (#post_logmix)}, banks, funds, or anything that a person can be said to "invest" in

I don't know how often people here talk about bitcointalk with other crypto enthusiasts

Theymos rejects much more than just known scams:

This really comes as no surprise. No matter how shady a website is, they will find users shady enough to advertise their scams, especially if the campaign protects them against the repercussions of thier actions. Some accounts are already too low in reputation to be accepted in most other campaigns, one which offers such high rates is a steal.

The review thread on the other hand has users honestly giving their own reviews, good or bad. No one would be red trusted for participating in that, except maybe 1xbit hires suck puppets to flood the thread and try to dry clean their image.

Yeah I'm well aware of that, but in both cases (banners and sigs) the end result is the same, forum has been used to advertise and promote scam.

I don't know how often people here talk about bitcointalk with other crypto enthusiasts (I do almost daily) and one of the popular answers I get when I ask why are they avoiding it is that it's scammers paradise  where they can do whatever the fuck they want, which sucks but that's how part of crypto community  perceives this forum.

This forum is kind of democratic, even if we are doing something wrong like promoting scams they will not get banned since the forum rules are not against it which is "scams are not moderated here", so the users are enjoying their freedom and getting paid for advertising a scam service here.

But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once which is temporary ban if I am not wrong.

But their signatures might get banned too because it happened with yobit signatures once

Imagine being able to promote scams anywhere on the forum except the banners https://cdnv1.csgo500.com/emotes/harold.png

The forum is incapable of effectively moderating scams, attempting to handle something you can't effectively do would create lots of loop holes that would be easily exploited and the unsuspecting members who expect to be protected would fall victim.

Secondly, Bitcoin is a decentralized network and each person involved in it act as their own banks. This forum which is for bitcoin discussions should ideally be designed the same way, you are responsible for your security.

Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
ie tagging and chasing away “likely scammers” and crushing the unique economic dynamic of account sales..

This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..


How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..

A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..

A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..

A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..

All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...
...

Beg to disagree. Police and justice system tends to be quite ineffective. Should we abandon it, so we don't get false sense of safety?

if we are all responsible for our own security. Why should we tag someone promoting ponzi that promises 200% daily profit, people should use their own head and know that something like that is not possible. Yet we do it all the time, myself included.

There's also the case in which you suspect a user of scam, but have no proof of it, who decides on such cases and where would the line be drawn?

I understand the argument that moderating scams would help in the very least to prevent proven scammers from posting on the forum, but the can easily create new accounts and continue with a new identity or shift their focus to other social platforms by attracting their victims to telegram or discord.

Some things are not moderated like scam, trust system, merit system but there are many things that are moderated because forum have admin, staff and moderator who carry out their respective function. Do they deserve to be called a central authority where they can do several things for the forum community such as moving thread, deleting post, merging posts to ban users? If I misunderstood the central authority you mean, please clarify.

Cause it's a community oriented forum with no central authority. The users are allowed to give their suggestions on what could be or not be a scam, offering their evidence to that effect; Everyone else is allowed to make up their mind using the suggestions of others as pointers.