What are you rambling on about? There is/should be no trust involved in Bitcoin.

There is no timeline and there can't be one. It comes down how involved the individual is with the ecosystem.

It's rather more important to spread the idea and clear out the misconceptions caused by ignorant/uneducated people.

Bitcoin is not based on trust, it is based on math.

Initially there was no slot limit, but I figured that this may end up being unfair if someone buys a majority stake in the raffle. Because of that, I've changed it to:
So the maximum amount is 3. Yes, you can only win 1 coin. If consecutive hashes make you the winner of both, we keep going until someone else is found for the secondary coin.

---

My cat is feeling generous today, and thus: I'll throw in some small freebies that I have for each winner.

Reserved the tickets for both. Let me know once you want to pay klaaas (send me a PM or use Slack). Thank you for participating.

Only the staff members.

The threads and the posts that they contain can be seen there (by staff members), but they are deducted from your post count.

Not really anymore. IMO it is too much for this particular piece already. We could go higher, but I highly doubt I'd be able to flip it over soon for more than what I paid for it. The most expensive one from the last round was only 0.25 BTC in comparison.

This isn't really true. There was only speculative proof that these coins are stolen. They aren't tied to the Bitfinex incident and may be linked to TF (still doesn't make them stolen) or I've missed something.

OP was hacked by someone else who edited the original post and asked for Bitcoin in order to participate in this giveaway. There seem to be a fair sum of people that were gullible enough to send them Bitcoin. In any case, it was also being spammed by new accounts and thus had to be locked (will remain locked until OP is able to sign another message).

Short pockets; don't waste my time.
GRIM REAPER @ 0.2 BTC

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.

It is not wrong, my statement is factually right. Bitcoin has stood for decentralization, censorship resistance and immutability (among other things). As far as criminals are concerned, that's what the law enforcement is for. Stop with the false deductions.

ETH was created and is being used by criminals.

It's quite obvious that your knowledge on the matter is severely limited and/or you're deeply involved with altcoins.

This is a bit incorrect. Any "fork attempt" is controversial/contentious without consensus. Any 'fork' without consensus is an altcoin.

Wrong. Bitcoin is showing that it stands behind the values that it was created for.

They have demonstrated an unhealthy way of forking for the sake of a bailout. The "code is law" and whatnot was an outright lie.

This is incorrect as well. Segwit will up the TPS to about ~180% on average and more on-chain improvements are expected in the future.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.

We usually call those altcoins, so this isn't anything special aside from them wanting to market themselves as as relevant to Bitcoin. IIRC I had mentioned that something like "Bitcoin Original" would pop up eventually even though it's based on nonsense.

The majority of the people voting on that website have very limited knowledge.

It's just another damaging altcoin attempt, nothing more.

That is what I understood from your situation. However, I'm saying that you can't expect some sort of trust system to prevent everyone from scams and potential scam attempts. There are some people in DT that have worked hard on fighting scammers.

What would that accomplish? They could just create another account and try again.

I guess there are cases in which one proves to be trustworthy (e.g. they don't run away with upfront payments or when they hold a lot of items). However, I do agree with you. Doing trades should not make one trustworthy by default.

Of course not.

No. After doing my own analysis, I have concluded that it is not stolen. You're correct on the secondary part: It is not anyone's business (excluding some institutions) what I do with my money, especially not the business of escrow scammers.

How I interact with people outside of the forum is also none of your concern nor has it any relevance to the forum nor moderation.

Ethics are irrelevant in this context due to the nature of how I treat the set of given rules. Additionally, I stay away from almost every decision if there's even a remote possibility that I would be influenced by subjective bias (i.e. I wouldn't be impartial). An example would be the recent thread by gorgon regarding Mitchell and me; we both ignored a report regarding it. As far as I understand it, theymos does review our work from time to time (mprep stated this somewhere IIRC).

When one calls them out on this, they claim it's ad hominem even though we are purely talking about facts.

We are talking about very differentiating groups of people. I highly doubt that you'd find many people reporting due to this incentive (icon). A poll may be required to get some better overview of the situation.

Should we really adjust every decision that we make because of groups of people that refuse to educate themselves? I'd say no.

You should be posting Press links in the appropriate section.

---

The article seems to have summarized some of the important statements regarding the recent events. The meeting that recently happened in the US between Core and the miners wasn't that transparent. The transcript is just huge and I've yet to see a good summary of it. During the block-size debate I have stated the danger of a HF (similar to what happened to ETH) a few times IIRC. Contentious HF's are very dangerous, especially for Bitcoin. I've seen a lot of nonsense in the recent time, some even claiming that minority hard forks are "healthy".

If you want a wider audience of buyers, the go with lower amounts e.g. 0.1 to 0.25. IMHO it is best to make funding optional, as in you can request funding if you want but it's not required. This is what miffman did with his coins. As an example, I would most likely stay away from this if all the coins were funded.

I like death, so let's go with a bid on this:
GRIM REAPER @ 0.1BTC

If the same ones are never made again, then it is certainly hard to pass up.

No. You've dealt with a person who isn't trusted and has had a lot of untrusted negative feedback. You can't expect some sort of perfect trust system that can prevent every type of scam. We've seen this with people that have a decent positive trust rating eventually scamming (e.g. Bogus escrow scam).

One can't blame anyone else, for the lack of knowledge regarding the trust system, but themselves.