After a bit of snooping, it seems like the section was removed deliberately a while ago in a dedicated commit. I assume the reason is either the features were implemented or plans changed. The only definitive way of knowing why is probably asking the author of said commit.

Before you try anything, make sure you're not doing that on the only copy of your wallet. Make a backup, preferably on a different drive. With that said...

• Do you have Java installed on your PC? If not, that might be the reason as to why it keeps crashing. Multidoge (which was forked from Multibit Classic if I'm not mistaken) is written in Java and thus requires the appropriate runtime to be installed on the end user's PC.
• If the wallet isn't password protected (a.k.a. not encrypted), you could try opening the wallet file in a text editor and digging around for something that looks like Dogecoin private keys or addresses. I'm not particularly experienced with the MultiBit Classic / Multidoge wallet format but if it's in a human readable format, you may be able to get the data out with a bit of rummaging around.
• If the wallet is password protected (or when you open the wallet file in a text editor, all you see is a bunch of weird unreadable symbols), you could try setting up a virtual machine that'll emulate a different operating system (e.g. Ubuntu), install MultiDoge there, transfer your wallet file to the virtual machine and open it there. While I'd usually advise against using anything Oracle makes, VirtualBox is a pretty decent piece of free software that allows you to set up virtual machines rather easily. Just don't install it while you're connected to your company's network, either directly or via VPN, just in case.

AFAIK the closest thing to publicly accessible traffic statistics is the forum's "Ad stats" page. While it's not perfect, a single ad slot's stats probably capture the traffic numbers with decent enough accuracy to get the big picture. I don't think there's a per-board equivalent for that though. As for topics, the only thing that's available is the "Topic: <topic name> (Read <number> times)" that's located right above the first post in a topic's page. Not exactly sure on how it counts the <number> part though.

Moved all 5 to the appropriate boards. If you find similar threads, simply report them using the "Report to Moderator" feature. Neither the phishing warning threads, nor threads about stablecoins belong in Beginners & Help - not particularly sure as to why users keep posting them there. As OP pointed out, phishing warning threads belong in the Scam Accusations board while threads about stablecoins or any other altcoin belong in the altcoin sections.

Not sure how I missed that one. Adjusted the answer, thanks.

That's something you're going to have to ask theymos. IIRC any boards that were archived were usually related to the subject itself becoming (essentially) irrelevant (e.g. the Multibit board after Multibit Classic and Multibit HD were deprecated). This sort of ties into the high bar for creation of new boards - once it's there, it'll probably remain there for a very long time.

Relevant (with additional edits):

The Currency Exchange board is meant for selling and buying BTC for fiat currency. If within your Currency Exchange thread you offer to sell or buy alts for BTC / fiat / other alts in addition to offering to buy and / or sell BTC for fiat, that's allowed ¹. However, if you're only offering to buy / and or sell alts for BTC / fiat / other alts, that thread belongs in Marketplace (Altcoins).

¹ If a user is trying to circumvent the restrictions by mostly making a thread about exchanging alts while only adding a token mention of trades between BTC and fiat, a moderator may opt to move the thread to Marketplace (Altcoins).

Just selling altcoins for BTC, fiat or any other coin doesn't belong in Currency Exchange. The quoted rule is referring to threads that offer exchanges between fiat and BTC in addition to other exchanges (e.g. BTC to alts, alts to fiat, etc.).

Once the card is turned into an image, there's pretty much no way to stop people from doctoring it. The only way to prove it's legitimate is the aforementioned idea of a QR code that references an authoritative source (e.g. a page on BPIP), which lists the exact stats of that specific version of a card. So, from a security perspective, there's not much to win from doing it serverside.

Yes, art is indeed very subjective hence why I've mentioned that it's only my opinion. However, in contemporary design there are some widely accepted general practices that lead to a better product / design (e.g. adequate spacing between a long personal text and the borders of a box said personal text is in). Those are also opinions, but they're a bit more widely held than just by me.

My opinion was intended as just that - a critique from a single subjective point of view. You're free to take it or, if you find it irrelevant / unreasonable, leave it. If there's anything that should be taken away from my advice, it's that I (heavy emphasis on I) think that you should lean into the design language of the last 2 cards. That and if you know someone who does graphic design as a job (or even as a side gig), let them have a quick look at whatever you come up as a v0.9 of those designs and ask them for their most brutal criticism.

For anything larger, heavily relying on cloud vendor specific services is a very bad idea if you ever intend for the possibility of migrating away from AWS (unless you enjoy headaches of rewriting code that used to run completely fine on a vendor's proprietary offering). Also, I really do hope that by "on-demand" you mean "very rarely" since at-scale (as in if it's being hit by traffic constantly), serverless tends to be pretty expensive compared to just running a web server. And even for that task, you could just create a new DB table and have a background script poll it periodically and generate the images that way (outside the request-response cycle). If it were up to me, I'd personally offload generating the card visuals to the clientside (via JS or something that compiles to it), while only recording the data serverside.

TBH, unless you manage to stay within free tier quotas, enjoy burning money (e.g. large companies / websites where the additional cost is just a drop in the bucket) or really like overcomplicated pricing schemes, I don't really see the reason of using any of the major cloud providers for running what is effectively a very overpriced VPS. There's plenty of smaller yet still large cloud providers (e.g. DigitalOcean) that can give you a box that performs just as well at a fraction of the price.

---

As for the cards themselves, I like the concept but (no offense) the designs could really use some work (from someone with substantial experience in graphic design preferably). The color palette, the backgrounds, spacing between elements and font choices are very rough. A lot of the designs (again, IMO) scream 90s in the worst way possible. While certain things are definitely dependent on taste (e.g. color palette and use of gradients), certain things are just bad design (e.g. layering text on top of other text in the background).

If I had to pick, the two cards at the bottom are probably best looking ones since the dark one leverages that old-school late-night neon feel while the golden one's tackiness fits because, well, it's golden and that's the intended style (the sharp contrast between the background and letters also makes it very vibrant and easily readable while also adhering to the intended tackiness of the 'gold version of thing X' design language).

The wide majority of SEO spam already falls under rule 1. Adding additional cases that are relevant right now (but will change / disappear in the future) would only hurt the readability of the rules.

AFAIK they aren't, otherwise there probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be a way to accidentally make duplicate reports (e.g. by warning users before they submit a second report). You probably lucked out and reported a post while a moderator was actively checking the report queue.

Only the duplicate reports are marked as bad. Their "predecessors" (for each duplicate, the user's first unhandled report on said post) are handled as any other report.

I didn't count how many but there were quite a few. Just cause a report was marked as a duplicate doesn't mean that its predecessor (the user's first unhandled report on a post) will be immediately investigated / acted upon. As I've said:

It does, just like any report marked as bad. As for preventing duplicate reports, removing the "Report to Moderator" link on any post a user has already reported would probably be the best solution. Either that or replacing it with something like "Edit report" though that would require even more coding work than just hiding the link. Either way, that's something that should be addressed to theymos or posted as a feature suggestion in the "New forum software" board.

Duplicate reports. You've reported a bunch of posts twice (once some time in the past and another time earlier today). Someone will sooner or later get to the unhandled reports though.

As with automated translations, in the end the rules are enforced by moderators. Me trying to zero in on what is and isn't plagiarism more than I already have would only reflect my own approach towards the enforcement of said rule. As theymos mentioned numerous times, there are reasons as to why there are no "official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones)" - it's up to individual moderators to decide whether acting on amperceived violation of forum policy is the "right" thing to do. As such, I don't think there's a need to expand or adjust rule 33, at least not at this point in time.

I've expressed my own personal opinion on the matter - other moderators can (and some probably will) disagree with me and crack down on it much harder than I would. Do note that I'm not arguing for these posts being completely-100%-a-okay, more so saying that unlike regular plain plagiarism (taking content and posting it as your own without a source) such actions won't get you a permanent ban for a single post. Depending on the context (e.g. it's a single post / topic or it's a recurring pattern within a user's post history) and content, the post itself may be considered as low value but that's going to have to be decided on a case by case basis. Same with what to do with such a post / topic (delete, edit, lock, leave it be, etc.) and the one who posted it.

---

EDIT: In regards to automated translations from non-English to English, I've PMed theymos about it, specifically with the following questions:

• What is the exact policy on automated translations (both English -> local, as well as local -> English)?
• When is it [read: automated translations] prohibited?
• When is it allowed (e.g. possible scenarios or situations)?
• When is it arguable and up to the moderator's discretion?

Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):


Taking his response into account as well as the concerns I raised in my reply to nullius, I think I'm going to leave the rules as they currently are. Rule 1 (and rule 23) cover the situation well enough. I might slightly revise rule 27 in the future but I don't think it's a pressing concern and in the majority of cases (e.g. article or ANN topic spam) the rule applies as it is written. A lot of the, let's say, "creative" interpretations of the rules (what theymos refers to as "rule-lawyering") are probably gonna be invalidated by rule 23, unless they are following the spirit of the rule / policy.

Indeed he did. However, if a user clearly provided a source he got the info from, it's a bit difficult to argue he's trying to pass the content off as his own.