I think most of the posts were necessary and Lauda tends to have a condescending tone in most of the posts I have seen. Its off putting, but he/she/they put out a lot of information and can be helpful so I try to ignore the tone and chalk it up to being "overworked" or spending too much time on this forum. Why would someone decide to come in at the end of the thread and say it was useless, I'm not sure. I can assure you I learned something and hopefully others did as well.



This would be a good idea! Its also a good idea to not use the same password on other sites...

Having your passwords flowing through your clipboard (copy/paste) is usually never a good idea.

Based on the password change and signed message it seems like your account is back under control so I've changed my feedback to neutral and will clear it soon.

Is it safe to assume nobody responded to the PM's and sent any coins?  

I added a temporary negative feedback to try and add an additional warning, I will remove or convert to neutral if you prefer.

No. 

The video is great, the guy is awesome, his mindset is correct. The difference here is that he has been convinced that Donald Trump is sincere with what he has been saying. Trump hasn't convinced me. Trump is just saying what he has to in order to get a nomination. I won't argue that its a brilliant campaign, I still don't trust the guy to do what he's saying he is going to do. Deep down I fear he's too egotistical to care about others.

I've already posted this but I'm assuming you no longer have access to the address you used to receive BTC from JohnK in 2013?

I'd agree with this, and it falls in line with the fact that he's not technically a politician which IS appealing to that group of people, and me, its exactly what I personally wanted as a candidate (someone that's not a politician), but I still feel like he is a corrupted part of the society and has admittedly contributed to the corruption in politics, just for his own causes and personal gains before he started running for President. He's been the one "buying" politicians up until he started his campaign (maybe even now). Yes, the politicians are corrupt for accepting it, but he's the one paying them which he's admitted. To me, this makes him more powerful than any other President and shows he's fine with corruption if it works for him. If elected, he'll have power, control, and money. Everyone better hope he doesn't flip when/if he gets into the whitehouse, there would be nothing stopping him to do whatever he wants.

This guy is awesome and I agree with pretty much everything he said but I still could not vote for Donald Trump      
The man scares me.  

Your a true piece of work. If theymos provides some knowledge that you are certainly not the account holder of cassie's hacked account, I'll change my opinion. Otherwise, at this point, I wouldn't trust you with *anything*.




Recent PM examples from knowhow:


Too many similarities to even list.

Just give the account back.... you've made plenty of money doing this to other accounts. Its obvious the real owner isn't who you thought it was, that's not the account owners mistake, its yours. I doubt you would even give the account back if you were paid. Nobody is going to trust you enough to send you anything for this account. The account will be useless and there is no reason to hold onto it.

If its her account she should get it back, participating in buying/selling accounts isn't a legit practice in my mind, so the buyer should expect to get scammed eventually. I have no heart for people buying accounts, especially for signature campaigns.
Unless cassieheart sold her account intentionally, she should get it back.

Your cassieheart account appears to have done a btc/paypal transaction with JohnK back around September of 2013... it might be a long shot but maybe if you were able to sign a message from the address that JohnK sent your BTC to?  You would obviously need JohnK to confirm the address he sent it to.

So my guess would be that some of this post is getting cut off due to posting character limits and its breaking the code wherever its cutting it off at and messing up the table(s), there were some table issues in the post itself as well but after clearing them up, it still doesn't post unless you break it into 2 posts... I started the 2nd post near where the post was cutting off when re-editing the failed post.

1st post:
http://pastebin.com/AyDesF9c

2nd post:
http://pastebin.com/2PNAyGQt

Why not just make signatures plain text, no more colors and no more BBcode. This may give those trying to get their first coins a chance to participate in a text-only advertising campaign, which isn't going to pay as much and isn't going to be as obnoxious. You could still have a 2BTC cost to be allowed BBcode, which I assume would result in entries into higher-paying campaigns?   Just a thought that I haven't really had time to process, so feel free to rip it apart  

I'm struggling to fully support the idea just because I am against the thought of buying any rank on a forum. The 'donator' status had a purpose at one point in time, but at this point I do not agree with the idea of buying a status that subsequently provides a false sense of trust to others.

Regardless, I'm not sure how else you would stop the activity without having a price set that makes it a much longer ROI and possibly not worth their time. But maybe just get rid of the 'rank' part... or give them the rank, but do not give them 5 coins under their name, access to donator forum, etc. the way the donator status does now. They are not really donating anything, they are trying to participate in paid signature campaigns for a profit... Or just make the rank name "Profiteering Glutton"  

Also, I assume this may have been looked at before but maybe ranking in general could be based on the word count or character count of posts as opposed to the quantity of them?  Maybe too resource intensive?

The point I had been trying to make was that they would still continue their same process which you outlined in a recent post, just without the paid signature campaign part, and obviously at a lower "income". I don't participate in account sales and I've never bought one but it seems like accounts themselves still have some value if your just selling accounts with ranks?  It even seems like right now they have more value if they are not part of a signature campaign?   Maybe this is where I am not thinking correctly?

Since they seem to have so much time on their hands, I would think they would continue doing what they know best (registering accounts and posting useless content to try and sell them) and take the loss but wouldn't they still have some type of market?  Primarily newbies (or scammers) wanting to get a jump on the rank process... or someone who actually wants to pay the 2btc and participate in a campaign but they don't want to start with a brand new account (why would they want to pay the 2btc? I'm just assuming payouts will increase with a change like this and entice them back). If that happens, now they would even get a cool new rank of "Supporter" that they can use for scamming or posting more useless content.

I realize there is no perfect solution, and I'd say this is the best idea I've seen... making it harder for them would be better than nothing. And maybe they just don't see it as worth there time and move onto something else, I can try to be optimistic    

I'm saying they wouldn't even pay the 2BTC for the status... they just spam on accounts with no signature until they get high enough to get some type of value for the account, if they get banned for spamming, its just lost time. Eventually they either sell the account without 'Supporter' status or they purchase the 'Supporter' status right before they sell the account, and subsequently mark up the price of the account and advertise it as "having Supporter status"

I would also question what the advertisers are going to do when they see a drop in people using their advertisements. Advertisers are paying out for a reason and I'm sure they are making money off of these spammers in some fashion so I could see them increasing payouts, they are going to have extra funds anyway when the numbers drop in people using the signatures.

They could also come up with workarounds to the situation and start paying people on just mentioning their company name in a post...

So just for full clarification... the general idea of what happens here with account farming is:

1 They create or buy XX number of accounts
2 Join them all to signature campaigns (maybe?  I believe this lowers the value of the account?) and start posting whatever they can, as fast as they can
3 Sell them to the highest bidder when they have some type of value or reputation, presumably to someone who wants to scam or join signature campaigns themselves.

If so, a 2BTC charge on the 'Supporter' status means they can still technically get or create accounts, and still post nonsense and crap for the purpose of gaining higher status accounts for reselling, just without a signature campaign, obviously making less money in the process, but they should still get something on the account sale which I assume will keep them going.

Accounts being sold with a 'Supporter' status are just going to be marked up 2BTC more to cover the cost?  I guess it depends on how willing someone is to buy it... or how willing advertisers will be to increase their payouts to offset the costs and continue their marketing campaigns?

Saw this posted somewhere today, its 4 days old though so it may not be new news... still everyone keeps saying this man is so smart, I'm just baffled, he seems like he is smart when he talks, all of his actions seem to speak otherwise.
https://medium.com/@jprichardson/did-satoshi-steal-my-blog-post-76a68cdda4f3

Damn Vod, you have a way of turning any subject into an attack on religion. The only time I have seen anyone helping out minorities, they are usually doing it in the name of a religion.

Case and point:

Google "Christians helping blacks"
648,000,000 results

Google "Atheists helping blacks"
51,800,000 results

(this is not a scientific study)      

It seems like atheists just want to sit around and complain about everything and everyone. The reason there are more 'crazy' religious people is simply because the majority of the world believes in a religion and has a relatively higher percentage of crazy people compared to atheists... but there are plenty of nut job Atheist. Just not as many due to the lower overall numbers of atheists in the world population. And yes, I realize this point somewhat skews my google search results above.  

Regardless, I still love you  

Unfortunately I don't have access to their personal experiences. Anything they say on a personal level should also be speculation without Satoshi confirming these personal experiences. Without Satoshi around, they can say whatever they want as to what their personal experiences with Satoshi were. Satoshi is the other 50% of each of their personal experiences unless I am missing something??  I think this is what CW was banking on... everyone would just accept their personal experiences and their word without any real proof.... how did CW know about their personal experiences?   I guess I have a few theories on that, if he actually did have personal knowledge, but nobody here seems to believe anything I say so I'm not going to waste my time saying them    

EDIT: In the end, personal experiences that happen online shouldn't be enough to convince them of anything, they are supposed to be the smart ones.

They should be held accountable.

I've posted it somewhere already but if you watch what CW says in some of his interviews, I don't understand how the connection could even be made between him and Satoshi, except for the fact he was around in the early bitcoin days, has a good chunk of coins (possibly), and knows a lot about cryptography, which Gavin himself has said he didn't think Satoshi was a cryptographer at all, but rather a brilliant programmer. CW describes himself as being a cryptographer most of his life. I also don't see Satoshi seeing the future of bitcoin as being able to track the can you've littered so your government can come tell you your being bad. https://vimeo.com/149035662

In all honesty, I was not on these forums during the time of Satoshi but I have read his posts and papers and tried to gauge a personality/character out of what he had put out to the public and this guy just didn't match in many ways for me so I was surprised to see so many, even old members, falling for this guy. Maybe his scripted/planned conversations with Gavin were centered around sounding like Satoshi or maybe it was just the support by Gavin, but this is no excuse.

I'm down to two options..... Gavin was either blinded by pure greed and willing to accept anything when someone was supporting his development ideas (speculation) or he was flat out involved in the planning of this nonsense. There is more evidence of the latter but not enough to be conclusive.

Ironically, if Satoshi did come back, I would not be surprised if he wanted to tarnish the reputation of Gavin.


What "heat" do you think Satoshi was referring to?   I would argue it was the same "heat" that Gavin decided to go do a presentation for back in June of 2011 which is why he disappeared after hearing about Gavin's decision. I get the feeling Satoshi was not happy with the attention that was coming from wikileaks, Gavin was the tipping point with the CIA, and he saw no way to correct it.

Am I completely off base here??