Thanks. They really are beautiful.
That depends on how much of a discount you are looking for. I will send you a PM.

The term "PM" is actually "Personal Message". If you want something to be private then you should PGP encrypt it to the recipient.

I have been asked to act as escrow for this contest. Please see below for the escrow agreement. Thanks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

This is quickseller from bitcointalk. Today is April 19 2015

The escrow address for the Girlbtc.com signature campaign contest is :1Gz5FxpFgsQpzChTtEJkgDAc8CogkxF5fQ

The escrow fee is: 0.0075 BTC

This is in reference to the thread located: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1030340.0

As long as there are funds in the escrow address to cover payment to all participants then it is safe to submit an entry

pokerowned/girlbtc.com will choose a winner no later then 2359 April 26 2015 (forum time) at which time the winner who pokerowned/girlbtc.com chooses will need to post or provide the BB codes of the signature they had previously submitted. Once pokerowned/girlbtc.com confirms receipt of the BB codes then I will send funds in escrow (minus my fee) to the BTC address of the winner’s choice. It is my understanding that the prize will be 0.20 BTC

Thank you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVNJvQAAoJEFMt0pDwvrUWS8kH/jATHYW/wsolgDYAYY+3LH+D
eMdPLqVcy3sXXHXmlpkH9bxpQ829dedSRnviB2K1Fu6J1/x6xtAzdfTilNjadqQG
Q/EES2mvv3JE1gcAb+Qb5OaEKqwT/U21p/0UmIwYowYY0R/0Myr6p2Rq+j475YCw
ZVhR0UuBoSWqgem80ShZoOksOdeqhgMHZ7WTj+5uSfH+P+N7o3cBWlxcl4yqlpzg
Om3B9uPGsxU1W/d6IpDy/mhF9I1IGWsCU+NyAwbsjghOIbirtRXbputid45BOnRE
Gg4T2l8X97WHkkRkwULM6MRj9tP5J6cHu9F4/mqtZlWK0IoB1taEb26m04Q70NA=
=1bMa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I had two running in my apartment for a few months and it wasn't that bad when I had two doors closed between me and the miners, although I probably just got used to their noise. When I sold them, I 100% noticed the fact that they were not there anymore (due to their lack of noise). I would say they might be appropriate to run in your home if you had space in your garage, however I don't think this would technically make them a "home miner". 


Sales are not going to be even throughout the batch, and it is difficult to determine what the pace of sales is going to be. It is also possible (although unlikely) that the entire batch is not going to sell and they could just decide they will use the remaining miners to mine for themselves.

IMO the fact that a miner is "used" is a moot point as long as it works as advertised and is covered by the same warranty. TBH I think that by arguing that they are used you are only going to distract from your other points which do seem to have some validity to them.

I agree that the S5's were really much too loud for home use (unless you have a large amount of space between the miners and your living area. However anyone buying a large number of miners is unlikely to have a setup that involves a large number of miners near a living area (too much power would be needed). I am not sure what the best solution would be here - probably something along the lines of offering refunds to people immediately after they received the S5 and were in a situation that would not allow them to have them on without it being a disturbance.

I don't know the details about various voltage ratings, however I do know they did advertise that efficiency would increase substantially (I believe ~.21 w/gh) when a special PSU was used.

Any miner that you buy and is not a "pre-order" is not going to be "brand new" because the manufacturer is going to need to run them between the time they produce them and the time they ship them, otherwise they would be loosing out on money they could be making - also the value of the miners depreciates over time so if they just hold them idol then they will be outright loosing money

I am not sure why you think that I sell bitcointalk accounts. I think it should be pretty clear that I do not currently sell any. I am also not sure why you created your account just to make that statement, it really isn't all that controversial (although it is incorrect). I am sure that a good number of people in the default trust network sell bitcointalk accounts, probably just not from their account that is on default trust. If you think that I am giving positive trust to any of my accounts that I am selling/have sold in the past then you are free to bring it to my attention and if I do not give you a satisfactory answer then you are free to open a thread accusing me of such (or you can just jump straight to opening a thread), however I can assure you that is not something I engage in. Your theory has also been debunked in the past.

It is factually accurate. Any dispute about my rating is solely about semantics and the substance behind my ratings is accurate. If you really want to argue about semantics then I can modify my comment to say "After an escrow agreement was sent to worhiper_-_, he demanded changes to the escrow agreement that would put both the escrow and seller at risk, after worhiper_-_'s scammy demands were me he failed to fund the escrow address.  I would avoid doing business with this person under any circumstances" however I really don't think it is necessary.

I have also reviewed your post history and it appears that you have been one of the first people to invest in various HYIP's that eventually ended up scamming, yet you always got your money back  

You may be correct in saying that that people may think that I would give a negative in the event that someone  had some kind of change in circumstances and needed to back out of a trade with mutual understanding, however that was not the case in this situation. He even admits that the only reason he backed out of the deal was because he was angry, however after having a long time to "cool down" he has not gone through with the deal. If there was a mutual agreement to cancel the deal with all parties agreeing then a negative would have not even be considered. If this means that I have more difficulty conducting business in the future then so be it, however I am not going to allow a scammer to blackmail me into removing a negative I left for a scammer and that will be the cost of calling out scammers.

It looks like you did not cite the entire law. According to cornell university, other relevant sections of the Interstate Wire Act are:
First, in order to violate section (b), it would need to be proven that the forum is not reporting the news in relation to any bets that you think it is facilitating; I think that is a pretty high burden. Section (b) also has an exemption that states that it is okay to transmit information when the actual betting is being done in a place where it is legal to place such bets.

Do you have any evidence that such bets are being placed from/to places where it is illegal to gamble? If not then the law you cite is not being broken.

I am not sure why so many people think that I sell bitcointalk accounts. You clearly are not playing very close attention to detail

I am not refunding CryptoSplit's investors. That was not what the escrowed funds were intended for. I do not engage in social justice.

I am quite a ways away from Finland so shipping would probably be pretty expensive.

Do you have anyone working on the Denarium project that is in the US?

Where in europe are you located? Do you have any business partners for your Denarium project or are you running it yourself?

Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law.

Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam).

The wall observer thread is self moderated so it is possible, depending on when the posts were deleted that the OP of the thread had deleted the posts, although the OP of the wall observer thread has not been online for a few days.

I understand that there are quite a good number of spam bots that try to post referral and other links on the forum, and that a good number of newbie accounts are nuked every day for this (and have their posts deleted). I would speculate that this is the most common reason for posts to be deleted when measuring by volume of posts.

I would say that the most common reason for a post to be deleted by a moderator posted by a more established (non-newbie) account would be that the post is off-topic or replied to an off topic post (which would also make it off topic).

I don't think a lot of insubstantial posts end up getting deleted, the accounts just end up getting banned.

Like I said in the past, the forum does not attempt to investigate if something is a scam or not therefore they do not have knowledge of illegal activity if there is any. Just because someone claims that something is illegal does not make it so. I ask again that you cite a law saying that the forum is breaking the law by not moderating scams.
I don't see your point here. So what if the forum is a de-facto honeypot? Don't break the law?

edit: link to case regarding illegal activity on the forum

Why don't you cite the law that makes this policy illegal? Section 230 of the Communications Decency act protects the owners of a website who publish information provided by others.

There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable

Returned collateral via txid 8f422c7408a851cdc75ad50b31add8342cd062d4d1453e4e119b131eda0a5ba4

Thanks for repaying on time. Let me know if you need anything else

here is a block explorer that confirms the transaction

Received. It is 0/unconfirmed now, however I am sure the tx will confirm. Please post your DRK address for me to return the collateral to you and I will once it has 1 confirmation

The forum has instituted a policy to generally not look into the various deals that people are considering to make. As a result it does not know if something is a scam or not. A similar thing can be said about unregistered securities as the forum does not verify that something that could be considered to be a security is properly registered.

The only real way that CL can *know* that a specific person is using CL to find victims to kill is if the killer is actually convicted (and would most likely in be jail), otherwise it would just be speculation

This is a very large loan amount. I am not sure that Magic8Ball is going to be able to sell a hero account for 2+ BTC if/when you default on this loan.

This is not a hotel. It is not the staffs' job to make you feel welcome, and in a lot of cases people will not be welcome (e.g. if they break the rules).

It is fairly clear that you are a scammer as you are refusing to use escrow which is designed to protect both the buyer and the seller from getting scammed.

If you are worried that the buyer is going to claim the non-receipt of the product then you should insure the package you send to the buyer in the amount of the value of the product so the buyer can file a claim with the shipping company when they claim that the goods are lost/stolen/damaged/ect.

Proof of revenue is not going to protect the lender. TBH if you have the revenue that you claim to have you will most likely be better off getting a loan from the bank. You will probably get much better terms anyway, and they have additional resources available to them to protect themselves from deadbeats.

Most people on here do not need any kind of advertising so the "free advertising" will have little value to them.

If you do in fact collateral (your posts suggest that you do not) then I would also be able to give this loan (along with the several others that have offered)