Is ndnhc your real name?  

I have not personally used this exchange website but am planning to as my friend has recommended unichange.me and has said that they have a very good support department as well. I guess their fee is 2% while exchanging BTC to PM.

In case of PayPal chargebacks, even an Escrow cannot help as a chargeback can occur till 180 days of the transaction. Chargebacks of gift cards also cannot be handled by an Escrow. Escrow only helps to complete a transaction and he cannot help if there is a chargedback later whether bitcoins/PP or any other payment processor.

@tspacepilot: I wish I could help you in this matter but well I'm aint a reputable member here and I also have a PPDO of 71.4 which proves that I am even not sensible. 

I would only request you to say if you have used a BOT or NOT on CoinChat and God helps those who help themselves. If you have any argument that proves that you did nothing wrong, then the reputed members can help you. I guess you received the negative feedback not because you had an argument with the reputed member but because he found an OLD case against you. Try to resolve the matter 

I did not ever know about PP chargebacks until I saw it on this forum. Ebay is ridiculous and I will never deal with them as earlier I thought they use Paisapay which is better than PayPal but then I realized that they only allow PP transactions for goods in USD and other currency.

Bitcoins should never be like PP although I agree than sometimes it could help to get back money from frauds but it would also work in the favor of the scammer. The best thing about BTC is that it is never chargedback nor have I heard anyone's account getting closed/freezed for any reason.

Chargeback is not needed by any processor. Even banks don't chargeback then why these online payment processors do?

People lose their bitcoins mainly by downloading a malicious software and if they use paper wallets or an offline wallet, there wouldn't be any case of a scam. In case of chargebacks, it can easily work in favor of the buyer whereas the seller (if genuine) would suffer.

Who is in the default trust list and whose negative feedback has been considered as valid? Quickseller or ACCTSeller or both? I don't see these 2 on my default trust list and mainly I have the list which was "Default" when I joined this forum. My list is:

theymos (1)
HostFat (1)
dooglus (2)
Maged (1)
dserrano5 (1)
OgNasty (1)
Tomatocage (1)
SaltySpitoon (1)
DeaDTerra (1)
BadBear (1)
philipma1957 (1)
escrow.ms (1)
OldScammerTag (2)
Vod (-1)
DefaultTrust (4)
Smack That Ace (1)

Is this only list counted or even those members are counted who have been specifically added by other users? Then probably the list would be much longer and never ending and in this case, mostly many members' trust would be considered valid.

I have 0.03258 BTC. How much can you send via PM?

Basically the OP is saying that since Politics & Society isn't discussing bitcoins and is considered off topic, and since off topic board is excluded, the former section as well should be excluded. Others are arguing that till there is a meaningful discussion going on, the board shouldn't be excluded.

Off topic board is excluded as people usually don't have an interesting discussion there and mostly people tend to spam there by asking weird discussions while this isn't the case with Politics & Society. There are some who are making pointless posts there but they are actually having a discussion whether it's senseless to us or not. I basically don't like people abusing any religion but the fact is there people are having some kind of discussion (disregarding members who are posting off topic replies in those threads).


I believe that till a person isn't spamming, there should be no reason for the manager of a signature campaign to exclude a board. If the manager feels that his website/advertisement isn't being benefited by posts in a particular section, the manager is free to exclude a section but if people mainly spam a board (like it is the case with the off topic board), then it shouldn't be allowed and the off topic board needs to be moderated as to what topics are allowed and what aren't as then all will start making spam posts there. That board is also talking about Entertainment/Sports/Art and it's admin's wish to make a sub section on it (which I guess is not necessary as it's not about bitcoins) and if the member wants to discuss the movies there, they can as now also there is a thread on the movies you watched. Nobody is stopping them from doing so and if managers feel that if there is a serious discussion in the off topic board, I guess it might as well be included.

I agree that Meta and Politics & Society section should be excluded but I don't agree that Meta section is only for Mods to reply. Isn't this section open for all users to suggest or complain about this forum? All the questions might be for the Mods to answer but even forum members can give their opinion about the system and if they agree or disagree. I only don't prefer users replying on threads which read as  "Why was I banned?" And members behaving as self appointed Mods. These members don't even know who banned the user. Also, Scam Accusation section should be excluded in that case where it's a dispute between the buyer and seller.



This thread is about Signatures and shouldn't be in this Meta section.

I am upset about the discussion and accusations in those mentioned threads. The members are mostly non-sig ad members who accuse other religions and drag the matter while sig ad members keep entertaining their accusations and leading to a never ending argument. They have already dragged that ISIS case to over 15 pages with their arguments.


If you mean to say that I am upset with this thread, then sorry as you are wrong. I am not upset if all the sections of bitcointalk forum are excluded or even if the ad campaigns are stopped as I wasn't a member of these campaigns before Feb. In fact, yesterday I was only having a discussion on this topic with a Mod. I will be as happy as I was before but I don't want my freedom to be hampered by these campaigns. I want to post without any restrictions and if it means that I need to leave a campaign, I won't hesitate from doing that.

I guess I have argued enough on this topic and have had my say. I may sound silly and so I think about these Virtual Police Inspectors. For me, I'm educated and I don't care if anyone thinks anything about me.

@bold: That's what I as well do but I even chose not to deal with them if I find their behavior suspicious or find them rude. That should be chosen by me instead of making others forcing me to deal with these trusted members and use them as escrow. There are only 1-2 members whom I trust here and if I want to deal with them, I will. Badbear is the admin so I said that except admins, there shouldn't be any default trust members that I should trust by default but that's me.

I don't know if this user is on the default trust list but he is a legendary member who has left negative trust "Luke-Jr 0: -0 / +0(0)   2014-08-31   0.00000000   Reference   "Too good to be true", or at least teaches people to be scammer victims (see link)" on Bipolar's profile. I noticed that Bipolar isn't a fraud but still many people thought he is suspicious and left negative trust feedback which they removed later but not all who removed it. Now someone will argue that one negative trust doesn't matter. I would only say "Continue your argument."

@bold: You mean to say that those default trust members are police? I have never heard a better joke than this. this is an open insult to the real police and to my mom as well who was appointed as a judge.

They are common/ordinary people who are behaving as judges/police here.

Why should all users NOT be treated equally (except the admins)? Just because newbies are spamming trust ratings? Then in that case, trust system should be moderated or stop account farming or bring back the newbie jail. And if nobody wants to moderate it, be happy with the newbies spam but other genuine people who give negative trust shouldn't be ignored. I have given a negative trust rating but it wont be counted so that means that person who I called a scammer is a Honest Person? Just because he hasn't received negative trust from this so called Police?


There are so many complaints about these Default Trust Members, but everyone considers the complainer a scammer. Who cares if he/she is telling the truth? He is not even given a chance to prove he is genuine here.


@red: They are mainly given negative trust if they don't use Escrow. My question is who gives me guarantee that if I use Escrow, it will be 100% trusted transaction? Haven't many trades which have used escrow turn out to be fraudulent? So many complaints and scams have been reported despite using an escrow. I have seen so many complaints where a member asked to use his own escrow. I know few Reliable escrows, but their behavior is (I better don't talk about them). Why should I trust a person who I have never met in real life? I don't even know the name of that Escrow or have any ID proof? I don't even trust my own relatives as they cheat me so who will compensate for my loss if the escrow cheats me? Nobody as scams aren't moderated. But here everyone is FORCED to use an escrow. You say these Escrows are police/judges? LOL!

I find it better to trade with users of another forum where scams are moderated. Not here where I am not trusted, not valued and am forced to give my money to an Escrow (whom I don't know at all). I will trade if I want to and cannot be FORCED. Nobody is feeding me and hence cannot dominate me.

I was going to make a similar post few days back but I dropped the idea thinking of what the REPUTED members would argue.

I agree that these DEFAULT TRUST MEMBERS have been able to stop scams with the help of their power to be in the depth 2 but what about the ratings they give only based on an assumption? Would they compensate for the loss the user has to bear as he/she has received a negative trust rating for no reason? Others would just go by their trust or some may give an argument that since you are blaming a default trust member, you are a scammer. They have basically stopped the legit users from selling their products or exchanging in this forum because of their trust rating which was just an assumption.


When I was a newbie, I did not even know about untrusted feedback and for me, I just went by the trust I could see given by the default trust member. Now one person scammed me on this forum and I gave him a negative trust but well, since I ain't in the default trust, nobody will even see my trust rating. Does that mean that my rating isn't valued or I was never scammed because my trust isn't visible or valid?


So many times I see ratings like "This user is most likely a scammer" and feel like laughing. What does it mean by MOST LIKELY? Is the person who is giving such a trust rating an astrologer who can predict the future? Many times their rating might be right but I don't like the ASSUMPTION part which is given in our trust system that "You strongly believe the user is a scammer." Either a person is a scammer or he isn't. I can't just get the feeling of a scam when I haven't been scammed or haven't seen anyone getting scammed. It's just like I see a person in real life and assume he is a cheat and then tell others I doubt him that he might rob you.


Also, I have noticed that they also ask for feedback and give feedback in exchange. May be they haven't forced any user but yeah, they have asked for it. So if that person has added them in their default trust list and the user in turn gets added in the default trust list by a default trust list member, these members automatically get added in that default trust list. I hence don't trust these REPUTED members.


All users should be treated equally and there is no excuse that the trust system isn't moderated and then giving the reputed members an upper hand. Now it is as if they call a person a scammer or trusted, their rating is counted. I would chose to either Remove the Default Trust Members or Moderate the Trust System.


I don't know if I'm right or not but is it true that the users who give Loans and/or work as escrow are mainly in the default trust list?

Hi dear. From which country are you? I am from India 

If this section for bitcoin related discussion? I thought we can talk about anything here except that we shouldn't spam. I know that this thread has gone off topic but I don't get why bitcoins should be discussed here.

If I am not wrong, I am number 5. Why did you bet on me? 

Anyways, congrats to the winner 

me

Am seriously asking this question 

I tried searching in the Local section but can only find these sections "Mining, Marketplace, Regional Languages, Press & News, Alt Coins, Buyer/ Seller Reputations and again an Off Topic section. 

I believe in prevention being better than cure but your logic is that you need to stop spammers rather than preventing them from spamming. So well it's like wait till they spam and then ban them but in this way, the campaign's reputation suffers saying that it has a lot of spammers.

Not exactly sure if a signature gets benefited by having the same user posting over 20-30 replies in the same thread. For you and me, the meaning of having an interesting conversation might be different.

It's not about restrictions as now as well many members do post in off topic and other Local sections even if they are excluded. Yeah, it would be hard for a bot to do it but if we set a counter that counts the number of posts by a member in a thread in those sections, all posts above "1" would be excluded which won't be hard to code. It's like an "if and else" statement.

It's just to prevent any member from spamming and they will know that if I keep posting here, I won't get paid and those who post there, will be posting inspite of not getting paid and will thus stop spamming and make constructive posts.

Anablelle.Horrible movie