That is hard to say for sure. If you were to try a signature campaign on a trial run you could probably insert a goo.gl link to measure how many times people click on your ads by participants verses how many people click on your forum ads.

You will generally pay on a per post basis for signature advertisements, so if your campaign is big enough you could have more then one advertisement displayed on the same thread. On the flip side however if someone visits a particular thread more then once they probably are not going to notice/look at the forum ad at all and your ad could be displayed when this happens (it would be possible that in this scenario, someone wearing your signature happened to post the last post, so in this case they would see your signature ad but not your forum ad).

It looks like that bit-x spent roughly 10.28 BTC this month (January) for roughly 10,200 posts. Here is their signature campaign thread, and here is their google doc spreadsheet detailing how much each participant has posted (look at the tabs on the bottom).

Here is a thread detailing all the current open signature advertisement deals currently open.

None of your screen shots reflect either of these messages. In fact the messages that you have shown reflect the opposite of that.

Are you sure you didn't sell the account to yourself? According to your trust you have not changed your password.

If the gift cards were redeemed it is really your word against his as to who redeemed them.

A better practice would be have to transferred the balance to a newly generated card number sent to his email by Starbucks

Can you prove ownership of the accounts?

It looks like you sent him something without discussing terms. If you were expecting to receive money immidiatly then you should have specified as much. He did offer to disregard the codes so you could sell them yourself.

If there is really no problem with any of the codes then you should have no issues with reselling them yourself.

If your doc is posted here then chances are that it won't be taken down

none of the escrows are approved by the forum. You can use any escrow at your own risk and you should use your own good judgment when deciding on who to use as escrow.

Yea there are valid reasons to delete posts however if there is any kind of dispute then being able to see previously deleted posts can help without getting an admin involved (which they generally don't like to be).

I don't think these sites generate much traffic other then from people finding deleted posts or using search features that we don't have here ect without original content they won't get a lot of traffic

Why would we want to? Such websites make it more difficult to scam via changing and deleting posts

if this was the case then would you agree that they would reasonably be the same person?

This sounds fishy to me. It is also why auctioning your account generally will not work very well.

I would speculate that he knows at least partially because the "tor tax" was paid from addresses and/or inputs were connected. WC had said that he connects via tor so it would make sense that his alts would sign up via tor as well

i somewhat doubt that this will actually happen. I would speculate that you are trying to trick the guy who scammed you into giving you Bitcoin he was suppose to give you. Either that or you were approached by law enforcement about your thefts

Compared to the time it takes to create an account and send a PM this would be huge. For all intensive purposes each of these accounts is only going to be able to send one PM before it will be reported and they get a trade with caution tag. As it stands now it takes 6 (maybe 7) minutes to create an account, create a payment address, write and send a PM to someone.

If you force them to make one semi-substantial post then they need to wait 6 minutes to make their first post, spend a minute or two writing/translating it, then another 6 minutes to send a PM. Not only that but if they plan on impersonating someone then there is still a chance they will get negative trust before they shoot off their PM.

At a minimum it will take them 12 minutes per account verses 6 minutes, that is a 100% increase in the effort they need to put into it. More realistically it will be ~15 minutes per account verses 7 minutes which is a ~114% increase in effort.

It used to be that the first number was red when you had neutral trust.

I don't see one. People would likely want to post a question privately because they are embarrassed that they appear dumb, however this does not matter because it is a brand new account anyway.

Plus posting questions publicly means that the next person who has the same question can find it via searching instead of having to wait for an answer

TXID 0c2d6a2ad094de2963b701009b843d23bb3f80e6cc1daa959bab82dfa363fef7
CrackedLogic has been paid a reduced rate of .019 (as per the terms we previously discussed).

All participants should now have been paid and the campaign is officially closed.


@hilariousandco please refund the escrow/bond funds (should be .6 BTC) to 1MALrxpLST3ocHG9fsEQp9tM8GgCGxKpEH when you get a chance.

Thanks again to everyone who participated.

If it has never been used then what is the point?

I guess that is fair enough.

I left him negative feedback. Let me know if/when he repays

you acknowledge the stupidity of sending him money this way yet you did it anyway.