Because let's imagine there is a user that scammed another one, it would be pretty bad if that user could just delete their account and remove all traces of themselves on this forum with no repercussions. Would it not?

Just delete the posts you can, remove any personal info from your profile and abandon the account. It's as close as you can get to closing it.

Yes; base64 images are just huge blocks of code.

For example, the base64 for is:
As you can imagine, the bigger the image the more base64 needed and the more needed to store.

You can't make one constructive post then fill the other 19 of your 20 post max with shit and expect it to be acceptable. Let's quote a few of your posts to make a point:
Do you legitimately think that any of these posts are constructive? I understand English may not be your first language, but these posts obviously took no effort whatsoever. 1-2 word posts in any language very rarely add anything and are not acceptable to spam for money.

tl;dr the majority (~60-70% or more) of your posts must be constructive. Yours aren't.

Why is this a problem? If you had read the rules of the forum you would have seen this rule:
You shouldn't need a second chance.

To address your second point, why would an advertiser want their name next to a load of spam? It does nothing but make the advertiser look bad. I doubt that neither YoBit or hilariousandco feel any remorse for kicking a spammer from their campaign.

As said previously, I suggest you increase the quality of your posts before you get banned from the forum all together.

If the image is hosted onto a website and the website goes down, the image would likely be removed from the post. If base64 was used it wouldn't matter if any website went down due to the image being hosted on here.

I think the problem comes in that it would take more effort to implement than it would be worth; very few users would use the base64 system. Perhaps suggest it in the New Forum Software board, but don't get your hopes up.

And he is allowed to, and is doing it for good reason.

No, Shield doesn't have much power here. He is not a trusted member and he is not on Default Trust. Also, you mind going into detail about these double standards?

Leaving negative trusts to dishonest people != trying to become an admin.

He gets negative trusts because of people like you crying about doing something wrong and getting punished for it. AFAIK Shield hasn't done anything dishonest while he has been on the forum.

No; he has done nothing wrong.

I do maybe think that your feedback is a bit OTT on this occasion Vod. While I usually agree with the trusts that you leave, leaving one because a user might do something is rather stupid. If you're doing that, you may as well negative tag every member here since they might scam someone in the future.
I think that a neutral would be better, if not removing the feedback all together.

I would prefer that than a staff member removing everything that they didn't like. Not that any of the current staff would.

And they can have any actual trust spam removed by contacting theymos about it. In past times where I have been spammed with negatives I had them removed in a matter of hours. However, multiple negative feedbacks != spam.

No one should care about untrusted feedback that doesn't leave proof anyway.

See my above point. Trust spam is against the rules.

Please point out where these promises were made. All I know about a new trust system is that theymos did a survey about a new implementation, and the majority voted to keep the current system.

Then stop using it if you find it so shitty. No one is asking or forcing you to be here.
Also Satoshi didn't sell anything, he left. I've profited thousands of dollars from Bitcoin, where do I fit into this equation?

No. Default trust was made to protect people.
Vod is a nice guy, PM him in a month or two and he will probably remove the feedback for you as long as you've contributed in some way.

The examples you have pointed out are either invalid (Vod isn't a scammer) or can happen in any sort of system. Next please.

Vod won't be removed. He's annoyed a lot of newbies by posting negative feedback before; one that professes how shitty Bitcoin is isn't going to have him removed from default trust. Stop crying because you got a negative feedback and work it out with Vod to fix it.

The two can be linked, but you're right.

This isn't the place to advertise your faucets and rotators. Please stop.

Precisely. Wasn't targeting you with that comment though.

There's a watchlist problem? I had no idea
What I'm mainly talking about is the pretty consistent downtime and CSS bugs which hide all posts on a page or make certain elements block black.

Things which aren't seen a security issues can sometimes be twisted to something problematic (E.G Images pre-proxy). Also, nothing selfish about claiming a bounty.

I didn't realize that it wasn't a default in SMF, though looking at the source you are right. My apologies.

The worst thing that could really happen is someone make their profile look messy and obnoxious, which is a very small issue in comparison to the others on the forum currently. Because of all of the forum's security measures I can't see any sort of problems security wise coming from people being able to put BBCode in their profiles. Granted it is a bit of a silly thing for SMF to let by though.

It will probably be fixed in the new forum anyway, so can just wait for that.

If you have put it onto the default button in your template, the button will post the form before activating any Javascript with onClick. If you wanted to do this, you would probably have to create a separate button outside of the form and add the onClick parameter to that button, then find a way to either show the button or post the form after the offerwall, which would be significantly more difficult.
However, as said above, it would be pretty futile. Anyone that wanted to claim form your form could probably just add the claim button to the form themselves to get around your blocks. By adding something like this you would simply be annoying real users; not stopping bots.

A 21 year old is better for such a job than a 14 year old imo. 21 year olds are legally responsible, whereas a 14 year old is not should something go wrong. In addition to this, I doubt that someone moderating the forums when they haven't gone through/are going through hormonal changes isn't the best idea.

You buy a certain amount of captcha solves, then use the API to send the image (captcha) to DeathByCaptcha workers (humans) who then solve the captcha. Once a captcha is solved on the website the result is sent back through the API and sent to the originating server as confirmation. This is why captchas such as ReCaptcha and SolveMedia aren't the most secure, as the results can be sent back as plaintext form these sorts of services to be confirmed.
Using a captcha solving service costs money, though it is usually a matter of cents per 1,000 captcha solves.

It happened due to someone somehow stealing the API key or getting into your FaucetBox account. Did your faucet have any modifications which used SQL? Did you have the same password on FaucetBox as somewhere else? If so, was the account one of the websites on this list?

Perhaps a feature which could be implemented would be whitelisting certain IPs to access the APIs. This could become tiresome and annoying if the hosting used has a dynamic IP however.

I realize that, I was talking about the score on the default trust overview page.

They aren't automatically removed, it is done manually by the person with the negative trusted user on their trust list.
For this user to be removed, Badbear must remove him from their trust list.

This is why he sees the user as having a positive trust from Blazed and others, but not the reason that his feedback can be seen on someone's profile.

IronMarvel is on default trust as he was added to a Level 1 member's (BadBear's) trust list. Even if the user receives negatives, he will remain on Default Trust Level 2 until he is given an overall score of -1 or less (which means he gets removed from 2-3 Level 1's trust lists) or is removed from BadBear's trust list; removing him from Default Trust Level 2 and stop his feedback being seen my default.

tl;dr the negatives don't matter as long as he is on a DT Level 1's trust list.

Also I think this would maybe suit better in Meta, don't quote me on it however.

Perhaps it's due to the threats made on the previous page by Tabata.
I must commend the second one, it's a very good idea that I've not heard before.

The .onion link posted (blockchainbdgpzk.onion) is simply to the TOR mirror of blockchain.info (see TOR section), so this TX 'b80fb2ed29b34c672d2c5cbc28a7e43192c6a9d0267f34324317209b0c679c72' is viewable on the clearnet also. This shows 0.06BTC being sent to the address of Badjacks99, as shown on this image and posted here:

Along with the proof in the post above, I think it's fair to say this campaign pays.

Fair point, though I wouldn't consider 0.006BTC ($2.6) per day to be a life changing amount unless you're spamming one word posts to get it.  I don't think that people should see signature campaigns as a way to get bitcoin, more a bonus to something they already enjoy doing (like you seemingly). However, if this is the case (and you are an actual, high quality poster) I don't much understand why you would join a campaign that gave out so little. You and I get the same amount of Bitcoin every 30 days by hitting the limits on our signature campaigns, the difference being that you have to make 600 posts while I only have to make 150.
Still, each to their own.

That plugin is designed to only block signatures which are ads, such as Bit-X and the like, while leaving other signatures untouched. Disabling signatures overall gets rid of all of them.