Ah yes, Hhampuz was most likely entitled to all of the remaining funds and this is why he took the money and tried to cover his tracks. /s

If you look at all the transactions that he pays participants with, you will see he pays himself out of campaign funds every week this is done either in the same transaction or immediately after the transaction is sent. He was not owed additional money.

As to the warning, I would refer you to this post. Referral links are quite literally harmless, and the only reason they are not allowed is because they encourage spam. There is nothing to warn about.

This is clearly a smear attempt by suchmoon to cover up how corrupt she and those she supports are compared to TC.

That is complete hogwash. Theymos has no reason not to trust me, and plenty of reasons to trust me. Further I have a long history of giving merit to very good posts that don’t otherwise have merit.

You should look up the definition of accomplice. If you are so confident that what you did was above board, I would suggest explaining very publicly what your exact involvement was

---

@NewAnon - You are upset that You think I called someone out for not paying taxes? If so you should let these people know. Or are you upset that I didn’t try to extort anyone first? Not that I am saying you are right about anything.

There are a number of reasons why BestMixer might not be immediately looking for the money or be opening a scam accusation, and none of these reasons are an excuse for Hhampuz to be taking the money for himself.

Further, lauda has made it clear that Hhampuz is not going to be labeled a scammer. Recent history has shown that those who oppose lauda end up getting excluded from DT and labeled a scammer, there are a number of recent examples of this.

Perhaps he saw how inappropriate it was for certain people to be anywhere near a position of authority or leadership. Or maybe he saw your extortion attempt...

---

@LFC_Bitcoin - excellent detective work. You are officially the first person to discover I have traded forum accounts in the past. I was clearly wrong about you, as you very clearly always know exactly what you are talking about.

75 Years ago this week, over 350,000 allied troops, including many who parachuted in behind enemy lines, fearlessly started the invasion of Europe in order to save the world from tyranny and to defend freedom. The first waves of troops had thousands of casualties as they landed on the beeches of France, but they all continued fighting evil knowing they were risking their lives in the name of freedom.

Today, in 2019, LaudaM in the face of danger, Red Tags Tomatocage, protecting innocent forum users from the dangers of referral links that Tomatocage has used in his signature for years. LaudaM does not care about the dangers of doing this, he stands in the face of danger and tags without fear. LFC_Bitcoin, despite not having a clue what is true, decides to bravely agree with the dangers of referral links posted by Tomatocage.

After the dangerous mission is complete, LaudaM decides to move onto more important matters, looking for and finding Anne Frank. 

I found it weird that you were dancing around the subject of you actually running a bot, expect for the sarcastic comment at the end of your post.....until I remembered this:
Neither of the posts explicitly say if you are presently running a bot, and the post in which you sell your avatar doesn't explicitly say what the money will be used for, leaving open the possibility that either you could be using the money to finance the cost of the bot, and to reimburse your family the previous cost of the bot. No big deal, there isn't any reason to be forced to disclose what money that is legitimately obtained is going to be used for.

No one cares if the person reporting the posts actually looks at the reports before submitting them, the end result is still the same. Frankly, so long as any bot used uses sufficient logic to weed out common phrases that would not be plagiarism, there shouldn't be any concerns with automatically reporting posts. Although based on who I believe is most likely to have created the bot, I have my doubts the person's junk science would allow him to sufficiently weed out these false positives.

Back on track, I think it is pretty clear you are still using the bot, and I think you are expending your own money to pay for these expenses. I also think you are probably not explicitly lying, but are making statements that you believe will lead your SO to believe you are *not* any longer paying these expenses yourself (and that he actually believes this). In some regards, this kind of deception to a SO, or someone you have a close personal relationship with is worse than explicitly lying because it leaves open the possibility to deny being deceptive when caught and confronted (and asked if you were previously lying).

I am not sure if you paid, or are paying, or were but no longer are paying the person who I believe to have created the bot. I believe him to be a scammer, troll, and a spammer, and not one to care about others enough to want to make this kind of tool for free. On the other hand, he has a history of smearing anyone who calls out his shady behavior, and holds a grudge, so I can't rule this person out from being willing to create a tool to use his junk science to further grind on his ax so to speak, that eventually got repurposed and/or modified to catch people plagiarizing.

Knowing my observations of your behavior on the forum, and who I know you align with, I am not surprised to see deception on your part. 

Projecting much? Perhaps you should look in a mirror.....

Here is the PM:
I am not sure how or why you believe him to be hacked based on that message. I know people in the above list to be several distinct people. Not only are they not TC alts, they are not alts of eachother.

Its too bad the timing of him coming back has nothing to do with integrity, and I am confident the tides would change in regards to his inclusions.

This is nothing more than a smear attempt because how he acts compared to you and who you support would highlight the level of your corruption.

I presume you do not like this because he has the integrity that you and those you support lack.

I am guessing you reported the post as a "referral" link without actually verifying this, nor caring about the accuracy of this fact. 

Is there a reason why theymos couldn’t make posts in that thread uneditable, removing the need to quote posts in the thread? The mods could then remove any post that merely quotes someone’s staked address.

If we did the above, anyone looking could just use the search feature when looking at the thread.

The terms attract only those who don’t care about bitcoin or the forum, and who put in little/no effort into their posts and these people are accepted into the campaign.

IMO, stake signatures should be banned due to excessive spam among those wearing their signature.

Having an option to receive an email notification when a PM is sent would be beneficial. Obviously not everyone has a real email attached to their account or activity monitors their attached email.

The email sent to respond to a message contains a link to reply to the message. I can see a lot of people accidentally clicking on the security link when receiving a email saying they just sent a PM, if they are in the middle of a PM conversation.

[Thanks for explaining your thought process. I wasn’t referring to you in my comment though.

I would generally agree with your logic in this case.

If you are infected with malware, it is possible someone could access your account without logging in. The hacker could possibly access your account locally on your computer, or they could copy the cookie used to validate you and logged in.

He wants to receive notifications when he sends a PM, not when he receives one.

Economic activity in regards to bitcoin has always been centered in both the US and in China, but this is likely because these are the two largest economies in the world.

The Chinese government has long been trying to regulate Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, and I don't think there will be a lot of additional innovation coming out of China. Some of the economic activity surrounding ICOs, and tokens that may resemble securities is taking place outside of the US, and is excluding US investors because of US based regulation.

Do you remember the account you bought your account from? Do you have the wallet file you used to pay for it? If so, can you post the TXID?

My personal opinion is that you should not be punished for buying your account 4 years ago via your trust score. I am willing to debate anyone who disagrees with this, and anyone who is unwilling to defend the trust ratings they leave has no business anywhere near DT.

I believe you should be unbanned if you really bought your account, and there was no plagiarism after you bought it. Unfortunately, the prior owner plagiarized a lot, and this person probably should have all their accounts permabanned. Also, unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort on the part of the administration to verify the claim your account was sold, and I don't know for sure either of the admins will be able to take the time to verify your account was actually sold.

Various other government agencies are probing other major tech compaines, including Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

I would have to strongly disagree with you on this.

When a company becomes a monopoly, that is unchecked by the government, they effectively become the government, and a regulator, except they do not have accountability that elected officials have. The role of government/regulator does not usually take place until the monopoly has a stronghold in their market for some time, and generally increases over time. Monopolies also will often engage in anti-free market behavior in order to maintain their status.

Take a hypothetical example of Ford hypothetically becoming a monopoly and running all other car manufacturers out of business. They may have initially obtained their 100% market share by beating out the competition, although they may not play fair once they have this market share. For example, car manufacturers buy various car parts from many suppliers, including tire manufacturers. Any tire manufacturer who supplies tires to Ford is going to rely heavily on Ford for survival, and Ford is likely to be their, by far, largest customer. If a competitor were to try to enter the car market, Ford could refuse to do business with any company who supplies tires to their competitor, and the same with other suppliers of other parts. Any supplier who sells to Fords competitor would go out of business, or at best would see sales decline to nearly zero, except what Ford's competitor buys, who may or may not end up surviving. I would not consider this to be fair, and this would not be Ford continuing to beat new competitors fair-and-square.

Ford could also regulate their consumers, and increase this regulation over time. They could initially sell an optional feature included with their cars that will prevent cars from going over the speed limit by using a tracking device and a database of speed limits nationwide. Later, Ford could ship all of their cars with this equipment, but wont activate it unless requested by the customer. Eventually they could make this feature mandatory on all cars. After conducting a "study" they could decide to prevent their new cars from going over 45 MPH, even if the posted speed limit is faster. If someone were to criticize Fords pay practices, or other policies, Ford could effectively disable their car, and prevent the person from getting to work or traveling. Ford would know where the person both lives and works, so if a car is consistently traveling between the person's work and home, and other places the person frequents, Ford could effectively disable that car too.

---

---

Moving away from hypotheticals, there is an oligopoly of "Hollywood" movie/TV producers (they are actually located in various parts of the US, but control nearly the entire market), who produce nearly every major movie/TV series. If you are critical of any of these producers, you more or less will not get hired by any of the producers, be it if you are an actor/actress, or some kind of support staff. If you are critical of any of these executives, your career will effectively be over, and you will need to find a new line of work.

Harvy Weinstein took this a step further. He would coerce young women to have sex with him, and would end the career of anyone who refused, tried to speak out, or tried to help anyone who tried to speak out. Women Weinstein wanted to have sex with essentially had to choose between having their career ended, or having sex with him. According to various reports, some were able to avoid having to make this choice by always being with a friend while meeting with Weinstein, and never being alone with him, but others were not so lucky. The reporter who wrote the first article about Weinstein was effectively fired from his job at NBC for working on his Weinstein story, after being given the opportunity to drop the story, but he was lucky enough that another publisher picked him up. This is not a free market, this is something that is very, very wrong on many levels.

---

In regards to Google, they have an enormous amount of power, and influence. In the 2016 election, they tried to increase hispanic voter turnout by nudging users they believed to be Hispanic to vote, because they believed this would help Clinton (it may not have). Google is known to tinker with their algorithm to display certain articles, information and websites (and suggested searches) in a way that benefits their political beliefs, and hurts causes they are opposed to. Google, on its YouTube platform, has censored many political voices they do not agree with under the bogus guise that these people are using "hate speech".

Google has shown a willingness to censor not only what people can say, but what they can hear. If you are interested in what I have to say on my YouTube channel, but Google does not like what I am saying, they can decide you are not allowed to listen to what I have to say. They effectively have the ability to shift public opinion to how they see fit -- there are limitations to this because there are still competing media platforms that can still state opinions that Google does not like.

Google has effectively become what is effectively a sometimes-propaganda machine. Effective publishers of propaganda will hide the fact they are publishing propaganda, which I believes defeats the argument that others are free to compete with them. I honestly do not know if Google is engaging in similar anti-free market practices described in my hypothetical example above, I presume the DOJ will investigate that.

I don't have any major concerns with Google supporting causes they want to support. I do have major issues with Google using what I perceive to be deception to influence public opinion.

Forum members can donate to charities if they wish. I would be supportive of encouraging people to donate to causes they care about.

In general, I believe giving to charity should be an altruistic and doing this for recognition perverts the altruism. This would not apply if you are using your influence to encourage others to help out.

Forum members can vote for particular charities to encourage people to donate to, so long as it is acknowledged that polls are not reliable. I think a third party collecting money to donate to charity is only going to result in corruption.