I can’t imagine how anyone could argue that holding someone accountable for their promises would not make the forum a better place.

The argument I am hearing from you is that bob is a good poster therefore him breaking a promise should be excused. This will make the forum a much worse place because it sends a clear message that you have a license to scam others if you steal from an unpopular person.

I excluded LFC over a week ago, and others should do the same.

In addition to being a spammer, he doesn’t understand, or care about the concept of having standards known in advance as to what is and is not acceptable behavior to avoid getting negative trust.

His english thread belongs in a marketplace sub, as he is offering a "service" of sending BTC to you after you give him your seed, even though it is a complete scam. The thread you linked is in a HYIP sub, which IMO should have the trust flags visible, as it is a marketplace sub.

The US apparently launched a cyber attack against Iran at approximately the same time the air strikes were set to take place. The cyber strikes attacked some of Iran's radar equipment.

If the US is not 100% certain of the location of air defense assets in Iran are, disabling some of their defense capabilities, and giving the impression an attack is imminent, the US military may have hoped to learn where additional Iran military assets are located, and what type of equipment they have. This could reduce future American casualties if thing escalate further.

I think Trump wants other countries to pay for security in the straight of Hormuz, and perhaps send their own troops and military assets to go to war with Iran (if it comes to that), with the US playing a more minor role than it did in Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Both URLs, according to multiple URL expanders I used, redirect to "shorturl.at". The domain was registered on May 28, less than a month ago.

I think this is the point.

It is trivial to fake a screenshot....they have been faked in the past few months.

I don’t think he needs to prove his innocence. The OP needs to prove guilt. He can report the PMs to a moderator who can authenticate the PMs.

If timelord doesn’t wish to receive any donations, he doesn’t have standing to create a flag because he has no damages. There is no basis for him to ask to manage the donation address.

I wonder if traffic is being routed through China (again). This is what happened not long ago when some of the routing tables got messed up for a short time.

I think it was pretty clear what the intention of the donation address was for.

Being that the thread has been closed for quite some time now, it is probably best to distribute the donations as per the terms of how he said they would be distributed.

At this time I am not supporting the flag.

The OP did say this in this thread, however this was not actually mentioned in the OPs conversation with Bob. In the telegram chat, Bob stated that he wanted to be sure the OP actually owned the accounts he was selling. There was no mention of post quality prior to when Bob agreed to buy the "green trusted" account upon receiving a PM from it to confirm the OP actually owned it.

Also, the specific account in question was actually Ntrain2k[/quote], who has not been active very much after the merit system was implemented, however it does not appear to be farmed, and doesn't appear to have ever participated in any kind of signature (or similar) campaign.


Fair enough regarding being conservative as to which flags you support. However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless (you can read my comments in this thread).

The flag (once created) would warn anyone considering to trade with Bob that he previously broke an agreement, and has not made the other person whole.
I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190619113422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 <-- OP's sales thread
http://archive.is/rlBTD <-- telegram conversation.

Unless you can explain why there was not a broken agreement (you say the accounts didn't make high quality posts, but this was not a term of the deal, implied or otherwise), if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it, and if you don't, you should be held accountable. There are no ifs, thans, or buts to this concept.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

I have re-reviewed the reference thread and relevant threads, and other information, and after consideration, have decided to remove the signature.

What threads are you referring to?

If you are talking about the guide type threads, I would say it is almost certainly for merit. Although the OP may want visibility for their threads so others might respond.

If someone posts those types of posts, you can report the post as being low content, and it should be removed by a moderator. Perhaps a solution might be to disable the OP topics from being able to delete comments, but allow the OP to prevent certain ranks and users from being able to post in a topic.

mprep has done a good job with the altcoin section, although there is a lot of activity there for one or two people to handle. I am fairly confident he uses one or more scripts to help him with his job. Possibly including one that automatically finds ANN threads posted outside of the appropriate subs.

There is an entire subforum designated for altcoin ANN threads, and another for service ANN threads. If an ANN thread is posted outside of these two subs, they should be moved by a moderator. If there is a thread that is not an ANN thread (except an “unmoderated” thread), it should be moved outside of these two subs.

If the OPs suggestion were to get implemented, it seems a simple solution would be to prevent self moderated threads in either of these subs.

FGPA mining for bitcoin has not been a thing for a long time now. Perhaps in altcoin mining, but I am not so sure.

The OPs escrow service is not well known to me, and is not well known to bitcointalk. Also, I did not call his service a scam, I was merely asking questions, although I believe that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

I still don't understand why these people are trusting you in the first place. The discoed channel you run only purports to have ~500 members and does not appear to be especially active.

Your discord channel says it is about "FPGA" -- is your community primarily based outside of the crypto space?

Your account is 3 months old, and you have made 15 posts. Why would people be trusting you? and why should people trust you? I have not seen evidence of any kind of reputation outside the forum.

Further, I am fairly confident you are not running an escrow service out of your BTC address.

For example, in ecdc594262582c9573beab2ff99e619bfc585dfbd5d39d4a6dd6a2a4817ed929 you spent all of the bitcoin in your stated escrow address that contained 4 inputs received on 3 different days from what appear to be 4 different sources. Further, you do not appear to be taking your stated fees out of transactions you spend.

I don't think she has any legal authority to force Facebook to stop developing Libra. She probably does have the authority to subpoena Facebook executives to testify before her committee.

I also don't think there is a basis for being concerned that Facebook has a lot of data on its users, when discussing Libra. Most of what Facebook has access to is irrelevant to Libra, and banks have access to much more relevant information about their customers, especially their long standing customers, and they have access to information contained in third party databases such as credit reporting agencies.

The concept of a stablecoin is also not new, and stablecoins have had mainstream acceptance in the crypto space for years now.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about Facebook, but IMO libra is not one of them.