Again, pretty sure Theymos isn't a government agent. If he is, its not at the scary level that sets up honeypots. He very well could be a city comptroller or something like that, I just don't know, but positions in the US Federal government usually require someone to be older than Theymos is. I actually don't disagree with some of the meaning behind what you are saying, although I'm 99.9% sure Bitcointalk isn't a deliberate honeypot setup by Theymos, it very well could be used as such by a 3rd party if not Theymos himself.


Yep. While I'd advise not doing anything illegal in the first place, if you are going to, posting evidence about it online is probably the worst thing you can do. Treat every site as if its a honeypot, and you will be fine. Encrypt your sensitive pms, don't say stupid things that could come back to haunt you, etc.

I'm not sure if the board placement shift was intentional or not. I hadn't heard any plans to move the sections around the way they were.

Topic locked, very obvious that both the OP and MTGox Support are hacked. Both accounts banned.

Does no one else find it suspicious that an account that hasn't posted in 3 years just so happens to start posting again, and a thread about claims for a site that hasn't been up for over a year pops up?

Come now people...

Funny, admins can't delete accounts either (not even their own)

Accounts can't be deleted. If you want to in effect delete your account, delete your posts, change your email and password to something incredibly secure.

This hack and the last was in October of 2013 to my knowledge. I think there was one other hack back in 2010ish, but I don't recall the details of that. That isn't really the point, my point was that hacks happen, Bitcointalk doesn't have that bad of a track record, even big companies have been hacked repeatedly. What would you like seen done? There is new forum software in production, which should help. This attack wasn't a forum vulnerability, it was an attack on the hosting company.

Discussion sections don't increase the forum's legal involvement. We do not collect any money from ponzi operators, we do not endorse any ponzis, we do not run a ponzi ourself, we warn users that they could be scams, we warn users to check their local jurisdictions before participating. Google ponzi schemes, and you will find names and information about active ponzi schemes. Google isn't responsible if you decide to put your money in them. Discuss this with a lawyer if you wish, you don't understand what constitutes involvement beyond what you are rationalizing. That isn't how the law defines it.

I'm not sure who said the ponzi section was created to protect noobs, as I said, people didn't want ponzis grouped together with other gambling, so a new section was added to reduce clutter.  Frankly, the ponzi section is one of the least controversial sections. As I said, Gambling online in general is illegal in the US.

I don't see how Bitcointalk fits your red bolded text either. It has been hacked two times in five years to my knowledge.

About the bolded above, there is a sliding scale of legal involvement. Fully involved, partially involved, and minimally involved. Fully involved would be a site designed to cater for such behavior that is in question. If I make an online drug market, my role is fully involved in an action illegal in my jurisdiction. Partially involved would be a site that doesn't condone actions done, but has a certain expected level of care owed to those involved. For example, if you were scammed in the marketplace section and the forums was paid to provide a safe marketplace, we wouldn't be legally responsible for the scammer, but we would be obligated to make the situation right. Bitcointalk is minimally involved in everything you have mentioned. Our primary motivation is Bitcoin discussion, and we make no statements explicit or implied that we are here to protect users from anything. Just the opposite, it is common knowledge that people are on their own, and the only thing moderators or administrators of the site are expected to do, is to reduce spam. We moderate discussion that is disruptive, not necessarily illegal. There are plenty of warnings stating that viewed content is the individual's responsibility.

I'm 100% certain Theymos is in his 20s. He isn't in the senate or congress. Could he be some other sort of government official, yeah I don't know for sure that he isn't. But I do know for certain that he isn't old enough to be a Wisconsin representative. A family member perhaps? I've seen his picture, its floating around in the original Theymos dox thread somewhere in Meta. He isn't the person others have posted pictures of.

Target, HomeDepot, ChickFileta, Anthem, Blue Cross, Sony, USPS, Staples, KMart, Dairy Queen, SuperValu, Jimmy John's, JP Morgan, PFChangs, Epsilon, Zappos, Adobe Systems, Yahoo, Marriot, Hilton, etc. Those are what come up for large businesses hacked in 2014. Facebook was hacked in 2013, with 1.016 Billion dollars in security spendings, and an additional 39.9 million per year in maintenance costs.
 
Bitcointalk doesn't promote ponzis, they just aren't against the rules. People complained about them being mixed in with other gambling games, so they were given their own section. Keep in mind, dice sites are just as illegal in the US as ponzi schemes. Its up to the operators to block the IPs of users from countries where their services are illegal.

No, thats pretty much the only reason. The forums would much rather have lower traffic and better discussion. Again, its not too hard to understand, this is Bitcointalk, its primary motivation is Bitcoin, not Alt Coins, Politics, Fiat, Computer technology, etc. Those topics are just related, so whether we have a section for them or not, people are going to discuss them. Rather than delete every non Bitcoin post, each somewhat related topic has its own section so there isn't spillover into the Bitcoin related sections.


Money isn't very important at this point. Hosting is covered, new forum software is in development, any money that is collected is essentially an emergency fund. Paying out security bounties, making patches/fixes as need arises, etc. The only real solution is to have people make their own forums. Centralization is an issue, which you brought up, but what about when moderators refuse to moderate Alt Coin sections as their individual community needs? We aren't going to make new sets of rules for each section. Don't want people trashing your coin, make your own forums and make it against the rules. There is so much drama in the alt coin scene, we have very little interest in being involved.

*edit*


The only active monetization are advertisements. They are so minimally invasive, and relatively simple, there's no point in not doing them. Donations aren't being solicited, and we aren't charging for anything. The Bitcointalk admins/staff don't make the money that is collected, it is horded for future need. Even if we were greedy bastards, collection of funds doesn't help us any, so when we reach the point where any future emergency costs are stockpiled, what is the point of hoarding BTC?

Yep, it sucks that the forums were hacked. I haven't seen any evidence that puts Theymos at blame for the hack, it sucks, but it happens. There is no such thing as an uncompromisable site.

Having your PM's given to a court isn't the same as lovingly giving them over to the government. It means a court ordered information regarding a pending lawsuit. What was he supposed to do, blow them off? Would you go to jail to avoid giving someone's pm to a court with a legal order?

Encrypt your messages if you want Theymos to not have liability for what you post.

*edit* read here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1027518.0

Agreed, also be especially careful trading with people. Even if no one gets hacked, I foresee some people scamming, and then trying to claim they were hacked to waive their liability.

Would be a pretty long run honeypot, even if Theymos wasn't behind it, Satoshi and Sirius made the forum, who is to say Satoshi didn't set up a honeypot? Do not use this forum in any way that would negatively effect you if Bitcointalk was a honeypot. I don't think "The Government" cares if you want to discuss Bitcoin. Think twice about doing something that could get you in trouble though.

It's done when it's done. There is a lot of work left to do on the new forum, but it's progressing. There really isn't an eta, it's ready when it's ready. Not that it matters, but I believe the recent hack bypassed the forums security features by directly attacking the hosting provider. The forum hasn't been hacked since October of 2013 if I recall, given what we are working with and the technical info the bitcoin community has (which works against us in this case)it's track record isn't too bad. I don't think removing Bitcointalk for what could be a while is the best idea.

To be fair, "They" were just giving a wild guess. No one was ever given a firm deadline, people asked for a guess, and it was given. Something else to consider, Theymos and Slickage had a basic idea of what needed to be done. So many additional features have since been added beyond the basic plan, it would be ridiculous to think that the original quote would still apply.  In reality, Slickage is creating two different forums. Epochtalk and Bitcointalk. One to be the blank slate that will be the open source anyone can use software (epochtalk). And then Bitcointalk has to be built on top of that blank slate that was created in the first place.

It might not be done this year, it might be. It might not be done in 2016 for all we know. Rather than giving estimate completion dates, its far more appropriate to say when it wont be done. It wont be done this month. I'd also say it wont be done in June. At the end of June, I'll let you know if I think it will be done in July, and so on.

Who cares when its done, I'd rather it be done right than hurried.

Right, I spent months fighting for the Alt subsections that exist today. Creating a vetting system for coins on an individual basis would interfere with the indifference that we have worked so hard to build 

But seriously, people are way better off with their own forums. Then you don't have to deal with someone else's rules. We don't have the resources nor desire to cater to the Alt Coin communities. Bitcointalk offers a basic board for people to make their announcement, find their community members, and then migrate to a place where they can discuss uninterrupted by others.

It almost certainly wont happen. Bitcointalk is labeled as toxic because it doesn't care about Alt Coins one way or the other and for whatever reason, people don't like that. This is Bitcointalk, the forum's objective it to allow people a place to discuss Bitcoin related topics. People have proposed ways to "vet" coins for special privileges here to separate the longer lasting coins from the new, but as stated, the forum staff/admins don't really care to. We have been trying to encourage people to create their own communities like we have created here for Bitcoin, because we can't appropriately serve multiple niches.

Bitcointalk's indifference towards alt coins only changes to disdain when it interferes with Bitcoin discussion, which is why it was given its own section. Removing the Alt Section would just lead to people posting about alt coins in Bitcoin related boards, which would be even more annoying. 


 

Well, I don't think anyone would give you any money in that case. The same should be true of a ponzi that acts similar. If you actually read any ponzi schemes, they tend to have payout amounts, dates, etc. The odds are dynamic, not unknown.

In your situation, no I don't think its a scam, unless you intend on scamming in the first place. People are welcome to throw away their money if they want. Its their decision.

I proposed that a long while ago. I agree, people rely way too heavily on the green or red numbers, when they should really be reading feedback on a case by case basis.



I would be all for this as well, if you could figure out a way to prevent trust spam by people with hundreds of alts. Absolutely no weight would make the trust system as useful as forum polls. I'd actually be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed, and people were forced to create their own trust lists right now. The system has been around long enough that people should know how to make it work best, but I feel that not much would change, people would still rely on a trust system built by a couple of well known members.