Its about $5 to ship if you just want the watch and the paperwork, it gets a bit more expensive if you want the display box.

The solution is to have every meetup group create their own bitcoin foundation so that each is essentially just an advocacy group. There are plenty of Bitcoin meetup groups that meet weekly in larger cities, they are probably just as qualified. The biggest issue with having one entity trying to represent a diverse group of people, is that they can't represent everyone's opinions or wishes. Thats why every country around the world has their own localized representation. People in Japan can't accurately speak for people in Argentina, but a couple of people think they can represent Bitcoin which has no national borders. Its frankly rediculous.

I don't think the Bitcoin foundation was created for malicious purposes, I believe their intentions were quite the opposite, but its the effects that matter, and I think the negative effects will far outweigh the positive.

On topic, why should Satoshi be listed as a member of an organization that he did not join? The creator is not automatically a member of an enthusiast club.

The default trust system is what you make of it. Should anyone trust anyone who they don't personally trust? Absolutely not. Default trust isn't about who is trustworthy, its about who is trustworthy to leave accurate feedback for others. An absolute scumbag could be on default trust, as long as they leave people accurate feedback. Feedback for someone does not mean they should be trusted, and the only difference between trusted/untrusted feedback, is "trusted" is where newbies or anyone for that matter should begin investigations before trading. I certainly don't trust everyone on default trust, nor should anyone.

People get too caught up using the green or red numbers as 100% absolute scores which is rediculous. The only thing that default trust does, is creates a group of people to oversee their own feedback. All that does is discourages trust spam, as it holds members to community created standards. I could count probably 10 people on default trust that hold any additional weight to their feedback over anyone else in my opinion. No offense to Dooglus for example, but although he is on default trust, I have never dealt with him personally, nor do I know anything about his character/logic/rationale so I wouldn't trust his feedback implicitly any more than I would anyone's. A two post newbie that has a feasible claim, a reference link, and an explanation of the situation is more valuable than a default trust member's feedback with fewer details. Its a good guideline for newbies who have absolutely no impressions of anyone, but anyone who has been around for years has seen individual's business practices, they have had interactions with other members, and can judge things for what they are, on a case by case basis.

I don't really have any impression of all of the quickseller threads. Thread volume and complaints means very little to me by itself, and I haven't read the claims to fact check. If its valid, Badbear will remove him from default trust, or things will be resolved. The funny thing is, if you tag 20 people as scammers, 19 of which actually are, and then they band together to make 10 threads about how corrupt you are, its not going to look too good. People on default trust are supposed to be able to read through the BS while not missing actual issues. Hopefully anyway.
 

That would be a pretty elaborate thing to do. How would you guarentee that you would be able to do business with someone on 10 accounts? That would also involve doing successful trades with someone that you dislike. As far as I can tell, there isn't much to do at that point if successful. If titsmoker89 can prove that those alts are all connected to the original person they gave negative feedback to, there would be an established motive for whats going on, but I think the amount of luck requires for everything to fall into line like that would be astronomical. If you have that kind of luck, try the lottery rather than spending months getting back at someone.

*edit* If someone has 10 unknown socks, chances are deals would go through escrow, distancing the parties a little bit.

Looks like you were answered. It is not your forum, its owned by individuals who provide it for the community. If you are disruptive, then you are kicked out. You are right, you can just keep making accounts if you wish, all it takes is a click to ban them. Not to mention the fees that you have to pay will start accumulating after a few hundred accounts. You are welcome to go buy some senior accounts, though I would think that would be far more expensive than just paying the tor tax fees though.

Again, go make your own forum, the lack of rallying support for you means that people don't want you "fixing" it for them. I don't see how spam is helping though.

I doubt Satoshi would want to be part of the Bitcoin foundation, so I agree with removing Satoshi from the tarnishing name of the Bitcoin foundation. Then, when then next foundation member goes to jail, the media will have a little bit less fuel for "CEO OF BITCOIN GOES TO JAIL" articles.

[/dislikes Bitcoin Foundation on principal]

Admins set the rules, Moderators enforce the rules, if an Admin says you are banned for saying hello more than once, thats how it is, its not like a triggerhappy moderator did it. Badbear already answered your question as to why you were banned. If the rules are unjust by the Admin's doing, people will leave. Create your own forum and set whatever rules you like, enforce them how you wish, etc.

You nor your alts are allowed to post here anymore. Feel free to browse though! If you want to come back, sit out for a month or so, and request that the ban be lifted. Further ban evasion decreases your chances of being allowed back in.

I dont really think the administrator of the site has to prove that someone was banned for ban evasion/trolling. How happy would you be if you were banned, some guy asked why and your IP information was released?

Don't worry, we are aware and have been taking names. People are starting to take advantage of the fact that Meta can only be moderated by global moderators and Admins, and that we tend to have a greater hands off approach in Meta, as the section generally is for things that shouldn't be censored. That said, people that are very obviously spamming in Meta will still have their posts removed for banned. Those that are doing it more sneakily require a bit more tact.

I've been locking concluded Meta threads lately when there is confirmation by the OP that they have recieved the info they were looking for, to keep the spammers out.

Again, you really don't seem to have any sort of grasp on how any of this works, which is why I highly doubt you have an account on default trust. Why don't you just start selling trust already and see how it plays out? I'm not going to take time explaining to you the flaws in your plan, because even if I do, you wont listen. Just do it already, prove with a demonstration your business model.

Lol, I wouldn't trust Satoshi with 780 BTC. My point was that I dont see the problem with someone leaving truthful feedback. I've done small deals with people, and I've left them positive feedback, I just carefully explain my risks and the details of the trade, its up for whoever is trading with that person next to interpret their trade scores. I've left people positive feedback when I served as their escrow agent as well, but again I left that I had 0 risked bitcoins, and explained that I had served as escrow and that things had gone well. The Bitcoin value isn't the only thing that is worth knowing about someone's trading history. How well their communication, shipping times, etc are almost as valuable information as how much money they have been trusted with in the past.

Since you asked, I figure I would trust you with around 1.5-1.75 BTC, unless you have personal issues with me, in which case I'd trust you with 1 BTC or a bit less. And damn, your feedback page isn't pretty. I didn't see many claims that had anything to do with your financial trustworthiness, but damn do you have a lot of enemies. How many enemies someone has is also worth noting.

I've been in the Bitcoin scene for quite a while, you don't need to worry about me. I've never been scammed, because I've calculated trustworthiness to a near perfect science. Self interest my friends, people won't go against their own self interest, unless there are other motives towards screwing you over, which is how I factored that I'd trust you with less if I was one of your enemies (I'm not as far as I know).

*edit* Btw bick, you could probably ask to get your negative trust spam removed. The people with 100 negative ratings for you in the form of poems and stories actually make it difficult to read. Pretty sure that falls under the trust spam category that you could ask to have removed.

Litecoin became the #2 coin because of how it was developed and the niche that is served in the early days. It was created by the already established Bitcoin community with the idea that eventually Bitcoin would hit huge $ values, and people would be hesitant to send someone 0.00050102 for a cup of coffee, so why not create a tandem currency designed to be lower valued for smaller transactions? Not to mention, BFL's Jalapenos were set to release shortly after Litecoin came onto the scene, so all of the Bitcoin miners that were panicking about their expensive GPU farms becoming obsolete had financial reason to support Litecoin. (Due to BFL being BFL it was another 8 months before anything came out)

There was a point when a very large portion of the Bitcoin forums/Bitcoin users in general supported Litecoin, because of what I stated before. They weren't in competition so no ill will was held. After the Alt Coin shitstorm where every coin in existance jumped in price following the Bitcoin take off, people realized it was profitable to pump, dump, and scam with coins meant to manipulate people and then fall into obscurity after their Bitcoins were parted from them. This yielded more Bitcoin purists and the community we see today.

There was a time when creating a crypto currency was a feat. Now there are generators that produce them for you, the thrill and support for alt coins is now mostly held by the dumpers.

TerminatorXL and I discussed this in length, I'd recommend reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1038547.0

the last couple pages especially, some misunderstandings made the first couple pages a bit confrontational.

Heh, you could add founder to the list of staff ranks. I have no idea what powers Satoshi's account has, I'd say probably adminstrator priviledges, but I'd imagine that has been changed years ago, since administrator accounts aren't left unattended for long. So I suppose it would be more apt to say Satoshi would have admin powers if they come back.

Admins: can do everything imaginable on the site. They however can't delete their accounts.

Global Moderators: can perma ban, nuke newbies, see and handle reports from all sections, and see reported PMs.

Moderators: can see and handle reports from their sections and nuke newbies

Patrollers: Are essentially Moderators but can only do moderator tasks for newbie members.



And the Donator/VIP section and Trashcan.

This is kind of going away from Baltimore riots to national security discussion. If you think that her getting shot after hitting a barricade at the whitehouse and then driving off is rough, you should try driving to the NSA gate. Its a pretty discrete location, and tens of people accidentally take the exit to Fort Meade daily. You can't back up, and if you try they immediate stop you. The standard procedure is to have your car dissasembled before they let you leave.

@ Wilikon I dont know if her order was a good call or not, but consider this. In light of the whole police brutality revolts from Ferguson/Baltimore, etc. The world is watching to see how the police are going to respond. I don't necessarily blame them for being overly cautious. All it would have taken is one club upside the wrong person's head, them taking a flop and the riots would exponentially increase. Some additional stores got looted/burned because of police inaction, but what would have police action caused? Hindsight is 20-20

There are no sections where you are allowed to solely post your referal link. That falls under referal spam, and will be removed. You can include your referal link in posts assuming the post is on topic to begin with, it is a quality post, you did not create the thread to post your referal, and the referal link is not unsolicited. Hidden referals are also frowned upon. So I'll give you an example.

You want to post your btcjam referal link:

Someone creates a thread asking for information about btcjam, say about security, safety of giving a loan, measures in which they prevent fraud, etc etc. You then respond to the OP's question in a constructive way addressing the question, and then include a "here is my referal link if you would like to use it (insert non hidden referal link). That would be fine. Something to note, since it has been done before, if you create a thread with an alt account so that you can post your referal link, it is an immediate ban. Generally if someone posts a referal link, it is just removed as a warning. Showing that you are completely aware that its against the rules and then trying to evade the rule with alts shows that you have already been warned but don't care.

I don't play the politics games, because every politician on all sides is going to screw you over in one way or another, so I'm very careful when I blame any political faction for things, as I'm aware that if the alternative was in power, something else would be messed up. Martin O'Malley has spearheaded some insane gun control measure in the 10ish years he was governor. Hopefully with a new governor some things will change. For the record I'm pretty pro 2nd ammendment, but thats because I come from a long line of responsible gun owners, have had a hunting license since I was 9, taken safety courses and such, and don't buy into all of the fear. I haven't donated to any civil rights lawsuit funds, because thus far they have been a waste. The supreme court has already validated half of what Maryland has done.

On topic though, I don't think we need to get rid of the police, I don't think we need to hit them with rocks or anything like that. Just a more fair accountabililty for their actions would be nice. You don't need to punish the entire police force, just make it so the individuals who abuse their power can be held liable for their actions "IF" they are deemed excessive. I'm wholly aware that corruption and shady stuff happens, but I'm also aware that people hit the police with rocks and then cry abuse when they get pepper sprayed. I'm no stranger to people trying to bait me and then cry abuse, so I recognize it rather quickly when its happening. I know the body cams thing is sort of a hot issue, I support giving them a shot anyway. Either they will legitimately help, or they will create a new genre in cinematography, as the police take extra special care to stage crime dramas so they can continue to get away with their shady shit.

All of that said, overall I respect the hell out of the Baltimore police. (Read above, no I'm not a statist, I'm for punishing individuals, not condemning entire organizations) anyone who says that they are over militarized, or over play the danger of their work environment, I invite to come spend a day (or night) in Baltimore. Take troops from war zones and put them into Baltimore, and I'd guarentee they would see some new things.


Agreed, people who are looking for justice in the face of a sometimes crooked police department don't loot liquor stores, malls, shoe stores, and attack firemen. What is being overlooked in the face of all of this, is that there has been a week of peaceful protests. Not just people burning down half of the pharmacies in the city.

There are a lot of proposals about how to handle paid signature advertising that are being worked on, the issue doesn't really pertain to the new forum software, but more to forum policy. Sure something in the new forum software might help limit the damage done by people abusing paid advertising signatures, but for the most part, its going to come down to making feasible and reasonable changes. I have no stake in paid advertising signatures, but most can agree that if spam isn't a factor, then paid advertising signatures are a neat idea that gives some people a bit of coin to spend.

There are a lot of interesting spam reducing measures bouncing around. By the time the new forum software comes, I'd hope that we have implemented some new policies to cut down on spam. Its getting out of hand.

Good luck, Maryland has one of the most if not the most strict gun control regulations in the US. Other little secret anti gun legislation makes it not safe to own guns. For example, I own a large gun safe, probably near a half ton in weight. If someone breaks into my house, spends a week cracking my safe, steals a weapon, and shoots someone with it, I'm liable and can be charged as an accessory.

Nope, its not against any rules. I'm actually hoping the OP isn't lying, and does have a default trust account that is going to sell trust. We haven't seen it done yet, or at least no one has claimed or proved it has happened, so it is worth seeing how effective the trust system is at self moderating these sorts of problems.

I expect they will lose their trust quickly, if I'm wrong, then there is a problem. If I'm right, then its business as usual. What level of default trust are you selling, and for how much? I've got no idea how much people would pay for trust, and if you are only on the 2nd or 3rd depth, I can't imagine your trust will be worth very much.

No reason why anyone should get mad. Get mad if it works and goes undetected.