Vod, you claimed I offered you “NastyMining shares” which was a flat out lie.
No it wasn't. You asked me how much for advertising, and when I replied then you told me "Most people take Nastymining shares. That's why we have no expenses and we can only be successful!" If OgNs response does in fact match what you claim, this would not be offering shares/seats in nastyfans. The response you are citing as evidence that OgN offered seats in exchange for advertising does not offer seats in exchange for being listed as a sponsor on your website. It is clear I never made Vod an offer of any kind. He’s delusional and trying to enact revenge against a community organization because it has a similar name to mine. In other words, Vod is a fucking idiot. He still acts like me donating all of my miners’ hashrate to a 3rd party is me running a business. If he isn’t playing dumb in an attempt to salvage his reputation and defend his moronic behavior, then I think he might actually be mentally challenged which makes this situation even worse. Wish the guy would admit his mistake and ask forgiveness instead of being a dipshit, but this is Vod we’re talking about. Most people here knew he was a dipshit already long ago. I don’t recall an instance in which Vod has admitted to being wrong so I wouldn’t hold my breath that he will do so today. |
|
|
|
I gave you merit because I only was able to give one last time, and you are a strong poster, however please wait at least 30 days until you apply on my thread again. Thanks.
Thank you for giving me two more merits. Finally, I have become a Hero Member, a total self-made Hero Member, starting from zero with merit system. I have some good posts/ threads to reapply next one month, but for now I simply would like to share my journey: I am on the way to Hero Member rank. Within less than 2 years from register dayI did not imagine that I can go far like this at the birthday of merit system. Full Member was my dream in 2018. Now, I moved on the top of ranks. Congratulations buddy. Keep up the good work and continue making posts that are useful and helpful to others! |
|
|
|
Add my buddy Quickseller, he seems to be nominating himself: I'm going to nominate Quickseller just because no one else has yet.
I have more merit than you... Thats a negative ghost rider |
|
|
|
I think lauda has been the only staff member to be 'let go',
I believe there was a mod in the india local sub that was removed from being a moderator after the exchange he worked for was hacked due to possible conflicts of interest. I believe MNW was a staff member around the time he was making offers to insure deposits of pirate40's ponzi. Also, xDeathwing was fired over a scam accusation. |
|
|
|
I'm going to nominate Quickseller just because no one else has yet.
I have more merit than you...
I am not sure why anyone is taking the OP seriously. I cannot see anything positive possibly coming out of this thread. In general, it is best to ignore trolls....unless there is some benefit to engaging with these trolls  |
|
|
|
Vod, you claimed I offered you “NastyMining shares” which was a flat out lie.
No it wasn't. You asked me how much for advertising, and when I replied then you told me "Most people take Nastymining shares. That's why we have no expenses and we can only be successful!" If OgNs response does in fact match what you claim, this would not be offering shares/seats in nastyfans. The response you are citing as evidence that OgN offered seats in exchange for advertising does not offer seats in exchange for being listed as a sponsor on your website. |
|
|
|
You need to create a new thread. The accused needs to be guaranteed the ability to respond, and those supporting one side needs to be guaranteed the ability to post any points supporting or opposing the accused.
He is responding in the scam thread, but you can easily tell that it is a dubious project because all thread that he created are moderated and if one raises an issue, he keeps deleting it, a gambling site should be transparent and unmoderated. I agree that anyone who deletes posts that raise concerns about their business are very suspicious. Someone needs to create a moderated thread with evidence of what is being removed and any other red flags that may exist. If anything critical of the company is removed, there will probably not be sufficient evidence to support the flag being valid. |
|
|
|
|
You need to create a new thread. The accused needs to be guaranteed the ability to respond, and those supporting one side needs to be guaranteed the ability to post any points supporting or opposing the accused.
|
|
|
|
Also, this post of his is deserving of merit. He has over 650 activity but is not yet a full member. He needs 6 merit to become a full member, however I believe he deserves to get a decent amount towards becoming a senior member. He is a bounty hunter, however he also participates in "regular" threads and when he does participate, after reviewing the last couple of pages of his post history, he shows a genuine interest in what he is talking about. His post that I cited above also shows an attempt to spread adoption of bitcoin/crypto in his area by spreading the word about local "meetups". |
|
|
|
Mueller is testifying in congress today.
I watched the first couple of hours before I couldn't stand it anymore. Congressional hearings are always cringy and boring. From what I saw, the Dems seem to have come out somewhat ahead, partly because Mueller was more on their side to begin with, and partly because the Republicans performed poorly. The Republican strategy was to entirely discredit the report, but this is too difficult to get across in few-minute snippets. It comes off more as a conspiracy theory. A better strategy would've been to reference over and over again Volume I's strong support for the Trump campaign not being involved in any Russian conspiracy. Volume II's legalistic arguments would then be overridden in many people's minds with the idea, "If he didn't commit an underlying crime, how can he be guilty of obstruction?" Also, although Volume II pretty clearly argues that Trump is guilty of obstruction (without actually saying so), there are plenty of snippets which could've - in isolation - been used to support Trump, and Republicans should've used this. I don't know if this hearing will have much effect, though. Partisans will be unmoved, and how many undecided people are going to watch even snippets of this? The stated purpose was to get the public onboard impeachment, and we're still very far from that. Articles of impeachment would at this point still be a win for Trump. I listened to parts of it today. After hearing what I was able to listen to, and reading about the immediate reactions to the hearing, this is what I was able to conclude: *The 5 minute segments of questioning each congressmen/senator gets for questions is insufficient for high profile hearings/drama such as the Kavanaugh hearings and the Mueller hearing. Neither side is able to have sufficient time to lay a sufficient foundation to lay any hard hitting blows on the witness, which makes it more difficult to establish the credibility of the witness. *Mueller's reputation took a hit. He was clearly not as sharp as a credible witness in court would be (who is testifying as an expert witness). He was clearly not intimately familiar with the report and was unable to recall even what should be basic facts regarding the origins of his investigation, such as who Fusion GPS is. He was also unable to explain the basis for holding Trump to the standard that innocence must be "proven". The highlighting of the anti-trump partisions on his team also didn't play well for his credibility. He was not able to even recall which president appointed him originally to be FBI director. *Similar to the above, it appears Mueller may had not actually been in charge of the investigation. His unfamiliarity with the report (after reportedly preparing extensively for his testimony) makes it look like one of the anti-trump partisions may have been running the show. If one of the "angry democrat" lawyers was something closer to being in charge, it would remove credibility to the assertion that someone as neutral as his record in prior administrations would suggest was running the investigation. *Trump (and to a lessor extent, Pelosi) emerged as a winner after today's' hearing. Today likely threw cold water on any impeachment push that may have existed, or that may emerge in coming months. Mueller specifically avoided using the word "impeachment" and refused to give Democrats sound bites from the report to use in political ads. The two above points also make Trump look good and Democrats generally look bad. Pelosi emerged as a possible winner because she will not have to deal with as much of a risk of the House (trying to) impeach Trump, nor having to deal with the likely political ramifications of impeaching him (especially without a conviction in the Senate, which is near certain). |
|
|
|
|
Mueller is testifying in congress today.
Earlier he testified there is no basis to charge Trump for collusion or conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure. You could argue that it might increase it. Most businesses here don't advertise via the ad slots because it's more effective to pay users. It might even be cheaper in some instances. Also, theymos doesn't seem to care that much about forum income so traffic probably isn't that much of a concern either. At least if sig campaigns were banned then the quality of discussion would go up exponentially. Though as I've always said, quality discussion and sig campaigns can coexist with better management on their behalf. Imagine if every campaign was run like Darkstar's. We would then have no problem with spam and they would actually help improve the quality of content.
I have long argued that companies should be called out when their advertising is harming the forum in the form of low quality posts. As a forum user, I very much appreciate how Darkstar runs his campaign because of how little spam his campaign contributes (although there are some in his campaign that can both post without knowing what they are talking about and get merit in these posts). However running a campaign the way Darkstar runs his campaigns is going to be more expensive than running a campaign the way stake ran their campaign both to participants and to the manager. If there were tangible reputation consequences to having a campaign run poorly, more companies would have their campaigns run like Darkstars. I have also noticed a trend that companies are starting to pay people to blog and write articles about their company on various other platforms (including other social media sites). I would suspect that more companies will move toward this type of advertising because the content stays up (usually) after payment has been made, and the reviews help with google search results. |
|
|
|
|
I think the rating is an inappropriate use of the trust system unless there is additional information not in the rating comment that I am unaware of. When you leave a positive rating, you are vouching the person will not scam.
The above is a recent change to how positive trust is described, and I suspect SFR10 probably doesn't understand the implications of his positive rating. I think it would be best for SFR10 to remove his positive rating, or clarify why he believes WolfBet will not scam.
|
|
|
|
I gave you merit because I only was able to give one last time, and you are a strong poster, however please wait at least 30 days until you apply on my thread again. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Until now, I only focused on the changed description for Negative feedback and didn't really notice how Positive changed. I used to use my non-DT1 account to leave feedback on successful deals, but under the current description, I can't do that anymore. Someone making many trades without issue is usually an indication they will not scam, however additional information is needed to make this determination. A neutral rating would probably be more appropriate for a single successful trade, and perhaps several successful trades (that appear to be mutually beneficial) would warrant consideration of giving a positive rating, and a person unexpectedly being able to scam you (due to your mistake), but doesn't is probably going to warrant a positive rating most of the time, but good judgement should still be used in these cases. |
|
|
|
|
I had PM'ed all the participants in the campaign and received a response from kodtycoon that he is removing the signature because he doesn't want to promote a scam.
I would encourage everyone else in the campaign to do the same.
|
|
|
|
The Post reported that field organizers' annual salary was $36,000, while regional field directors received $48,000 and statewide department directors were given $90,000. They're working more than 40 hours, that's the problem. The workers had their hours cut so that their effective wage will be $15/hour. I guess this is a preview to what will happen when the government tries to artificially increase the cost of labor. |
|
|
|
This is almost certainly an attempt to get someone to post on their account for signature rewards.
Obviously. The OP is trying to do simple arbitrage -- receive /post at a rate higher than what he will pay whoever he hires. |
|
|
|
So what? His trust rating is representative of his personal experience with the exchange. They were a good client to deal with from Hhampuz's point of view. [...]
Here is the description of a positive rating: Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Having a positive trading experience does not appear to be sufficient to warrant a positive rating, according to the above description. When you leave a positive rating, you are saying the person is unlikely to scam anyone. When it comes to handling campaign-related BTC, Livecoin never scammed anybody. That is not the purpose of the trust system. The purpose of giving a positive rating is to vouch that the person is unlikely to scam period, there are no 'ifs thans or buts'. It is not acceptable to give positive trust to a known scammer who takes out a collateralized reputation loan, or something similar. The issue at hand in regards to LiveCoin is not that they have an unhappy customer, it is they have profited from the trading of a coin they have no ability to process withdrawals for, and have continued doing so for over a year. Sure, they were the subject of a double spending attack on a shitty altcoin, but after they had their money stolen, they continued allowing traders to buy the coin when the exchange knew very well there was no way they could process a withdrawal request from these traders. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think the signed messages is sufficient to prove the various accounts were hacked. All a signed message proves is that the person has access to the private key, or can communicate with someone who has access to the private key. A signed message does not confirm the contents of the message are accurate. if tags will be removed from some of those who allegedly had their accounts hacked, it is probably best to remove all the tags in question, even without a signed message.
I don't know how the blockchain.info (now .com) tagging system worked over the years, and don't know if it was ever possible to tag an address without a signed message. I would not find it unreasonable to hear that the private key to someone's 2012 address that was never used to receive bitcoin is lost/inaccessible.
Perhaps theymos can comment on if there is evidence that the accounts in question were hacked, as he can review IP evidence (and other evidence) to see if this is a reasonable conclusion. Until theymos confirms this, I will be unconvinced the accounts in question are hacked.
If the accounts in question are hacked, there may be an unknown security risk to either the forum or popular services widely used by forum users that is leading to many passwords being leaked.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
