General rule of thumb: if I know that I am willfully taking someone else's idea, I should be crediting them. This avoids the whole pedantically semantic trap of 'but what if it's general knowledge?' and all other crap.

In comes the indignant attitude: what a surprise. I guess when you don't get your way, the only thing left to do is to rage on the internet for no reason and waste both your time and the time of others. After all, since you're clearly not doing anything productive with your time, why should anybody else?

By all means, spout some bullshit about how "fiat government approved gambling" is better. Hint hint: they're all shitty.

Yeah, I don't really see the link. I think you're searching down the wrong alley here, honestly. Especially since the user is disparaging LAngel, rather than doing anything that is in support of his claims. Apart from the whole "10000x" comment, which I think most skeptical gamblers would agree with...

After all, I'm quite cynical when it comes to casinos and their ToS.

Kind of strange, though, don't you think? After all, if it's a throwaway account, whether the thread is active or not doesn't really matter to them. Not only that, but if they knew that they were in the wrong, wouldn't it make sense to just stop replying and simply disappear?

All of the behavior is completely irrational.

It won't prove anything. Just the fact that a 4 BTC transaction occurred within an hour, which I think would be a very probable event.

What's with these threads? Does anyone else notice that over the past day there have been a number of threads with the same strange fragmented sentence per line and odd spacing? The ones posted by David Beckham and Smartvirus are eerily similar to this one. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to these posters but you've got a lot of brand new users posting very particular topics, that I don't think typical beginners would ask.

The stickied threads in the Meta board will give you all the information you need. In particular, the Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ thread will be critical.

Make sure you read and understand all the rules. Ask for clarification when necessary.

I have already mentioned the existence of FIAT-based casinos that allow you to deposit without checking your identification or your age. They only really pretend like they give a shit when you're withdrawing, rather than when you're depositing. Why is this? Well, if it so happens that you don't meet the requirements or that your account was fraudulent, then they can just say "nice, more money for us" and act as if their policies actually resulted in something rather than just inconveniencing literally every single person on their platform.

Fucking casinos, man.

It's actually fortunate that the scammers were stupid enough to forget about the use of BCC. Reply to all in that email and make sure none of the potential victims go through with the link. After all, if they didn't realize that the "Bittrex Team" email came from yahoo of all places, they would probably be the exact audience that would be prone to this kind of scam.

I am not familiar with the conflict (or I have forgotten the details over the very long duration of which it's been active) but I do think your principles have merit. It shouldn't be that users are merely allowed to spread around feedback with flawed justification just because "the majority" of their feedback is rightfully justified. Again, we fall into arbitrary metrics of 'what does it mean by the majority' or 'what is the ratio of bad:good feedback we must cross to which we distrust a user?'

What that entails is the following rule for DefaultTrust: "As long as you don't abuse it too much, you're allowed to abuse it."

... and that's not going to be good for a trust system.

Hah! You think casinos are serious about the issue of underage gambling? As if! They may say 'oh no, what about the kids?!' in their justification for KYC, but how many casinos actually ask for KYC before deposits, instead of after withdrawals? It's all a masquerade, just like their anti-abuse Terms of Service agreements when it comes to bonuses and deposits.

Casinos don't give a shit. They will parade their AML/KYC regulatory terms pretending like the intent of those rules is purely for ensuring safety, but when it impacts literally everyone, and when the money launderers and others know how to circumvent their rules, who is it really for?

I still think I would like to avoid arbitrary metrics for disincentivizing users from looking at trust feedback. Whether it's neutral, positive, or negative, trusted or untrusted, I think if a user is going to do anything with another account, they should take a look at all feedback posted on the account.

The questions that should be brought to the forefront are: what is the intent of changing the color? Is it treating a symptom of a problem, or the cause of the problem?

Oh, I care about the lives of others. Clearly though, you don't... since you're not even mentioning a single detail about this life you're intending to save.

Yeah, just go ahead and walk up to someone on the street with a full mask and costume on, asking for ~US$18000 without any indication of what it's for apart from "it's to save a person's life". That's basically what's happening here.

Hello, brand new "User240589".

No.

Clearly, it's because their keyboard was incredibly tiny and they fat-fingered the TAB button instead of making the tilde, and ended up adding you to their network. Give it a few days, they'll change it back soon enough: it's definitely not going to stick.

Prove me wrong, peloso!

This is the wrong section. Move this to Gambling by using the button in the bottom-left.

---

Your kid was gambling on the site? Seems like something you need to discuss with him, first.

There are a lot of casinos that don't require KYC until you withdraw. In fact, if you want an example of a fiat casino that does exactly that, take a look at Mr. Green.
One problem with the internet is that almost anyone can access these sites... if you want to report it due to it being unregulated in the UK, you could try, but the odds of anything actually happening are probably very slim.

You can draw parallels between those you've mentioned and ponzi creators/supporters. It's the same strain of foolishness and hopelessly ignorant optimism that blinds people into these traps. Once a mark is hooked on a concept and they've invested any time into it, they will subsequently sling around post hoc justifications for their stupidity which only results in more losses.

I think, though, if someone were to do faux scams and return the money to the users in order to teach them the 'tough lesson' without the consequence of actual financial losses, that might help. Plus, it can act as scammer competition: with so many scams out there, once you start seeing the same things repeating, wouldn't you get much more suspicious about those 'huge money-making opportunities'? It could be argued that the loss of money makes the impact much more significant, but I don't see many people playing devil's advocate on this issue.

Glad to see some level-headed decision-making.

There may be hope yet for the forum.

Those are a lot of buzzwords you're tossing around. As an aside, I think it's important for all users to leave accurate feedback because conditioning users to adopt the DefaultTrust network as a centralized trust list is the opposite of what we should do. ALL users should be leaving neutral and negative feedback accordingly, and though the impact of individual feedback has been lessened due to the trust changes over the years, I would still advocate for seldom use of the positive feedback feature.

I don't like to use ad-hominem attacks either, but is there any specific reason you're seeking out this apparent vendetta? Apart from getting a negative for the whole "sending merit to yourself" thing.

Situation resolved, by the way.

The whole point of trust feedback is to have it so that people will look at them and write their own feedback, isn't it? I have always been hesitant to add any sort of regulatory micromanaging when it comes to DefaultTrust and I think adding an option for any arbitrary number of DT members (who cycle every month) based on another arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback is prone to abuse.

Even countered feedback in the past was just to stop someone from seeing the negative number on their profile sheet but given the breadth of the DefaultTrust network, with 100 DT1 members that include at least ten other users, you have a huge number of users in DT. This means that individual feedback is worth less and that users should be paying much more attention to the feedback comments rather than just the raw numbers (something that should have been done anyway).

They could, but then who would be your target audience? You wouldn't want to waste time making a whole new design when you can easily copy and paste the same thing, reducing your costs and only attracting people who didn't realize it's another throwaway shit-token.

Scammers usually follow the whole 'act like an idiot, attract all the idiots' principle in order to maximize success rates of getting useful marks and to minimize the amount of time they have to put in to go through with the scam. It's smart and very pragmatic, but of course what it means is that it's only the people who are ignorant of these scams are the ones getting burned. Hopefully, tough lessons help.

I don't care whose money it is. The origin on the money does not change how simple mathematics operates.

Either you are refusing to see the truth because your emotional response is too dramatic and you're blinded by fury, or you are too ignorant to understand how probability works. All of your bets are independent events. Each bet has a 15% of being a loss.

You cannot tell me that after some number of consecutive losses, that the 15% chance of losing changes. Do you agree? Yes or no?