Agreed. Patrol could be a great resource, both for reporting spam and for finding good newbies to award merit. As it currently stands it is next to useless, as of the 200 newbie posts which are displayed, you are lucky if 10 of them aren't some altcoin bounty trash or posts from local boards. No one is going to bother wading through all that noise.

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure just how many newbie posts the forum stores to populate the patrol list from, but it's not a lot. For example, if you go to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;boards=1;patrol right now, you only see two posts. I'm not overly familiar with SMF, so I don't know how easy it would be to increase the number of stored posts so you can get at least a few dozen newbie posts per board, but that would be great if it could be implemented. The other option which occurred to me was to have patrol not show boards which you have on ignore. This already happens for "recent" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent), so I assume it would be possible to implement the same for patrol.

Here is the post on the Ledger subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/awyj7m/there_is_a_bug_in_your_monero_wallet_i_may_ahve/

Looks like the unlucky user in question has currently lost somewhere in the region of 1680 Monero ($80,000). The question is whether his wallet just isn't syncing properly with the change addresses, or whether there was a bug in deriving the change addresses, meaning he has just sent 1680 Monero to an address no one can access. The Ledger team are already involved and working on it, by the looks of things.

But yeah, if you are using a Ledger to store Monero, do not try to spend or move your coins until this is all sorted out.

See the following quote from mprep's Unofficial Rules thread:

It would also give off an illusion of safety. If there was a culture of banning scams, then users may operate under the false assumption that any offer or service they come across on this forum is legit, when in fact it could simply be a scam which hadn't been caught yet. Not to mention there just simply isn't enough moderator time to examine the evidence for every scam accusation.

What about a "history" button on each user's page? So you can pull up that user's previously archived trust lists without having to go to http://loyce.club/trust/, picking the date, and searching for the user for each one.

Would make it nice and easy to see how things are evolving over time, which is likely to become more interesting as time goes on.

True, but the DT1 re-calculation only happens once a month (so far), rather than updating in real time. So if you did become DT1, and then 3 people dropped you from their trust list, you would remain DT1 until the next recalculation.


Correct. Philipma1957's trust list at the start of February (the time of the last recalculation) only contained 7 users.

To follow on from this, Coinbase have just admitted the reason they bought Neutrino was because their previous provider was caught selling client data to third parties (skip to 1:53 in the video). They don't say what data was compromised, or how long they've known for, or why they didn't inform their customers at the time.

They are anti-bitcoin, anti-privacy, anti-customer. They only thing they are pro is greed.

Wow. Here a couple of highlights I found browsing twitter yesterday.

Coinbase's head of sales Christine Sandler said that Coinbase decided to buy Neutrino because their current providers were "selling client data to outside sources".

Coinbase are preventing users from closing their accounts. They are also saying they cannot delete data within the GDPR legal limit of 30 days because of the "complexity of your request". How the simple act of deleting your data is "complex" is beyond me.


Yeah, at this point, it has nothing to do with your funds. If you verified with Coinbase, your identity is at risk. They have admitted to selling your data to outside sources, and are now illegally refusing to delete client data.

Agreed. Giving a list of suggested users to pick from was only going to be in the case of removing and replacing default trust, as you can see in theymos initial thread about here: Replacing DefaultTrust.

If your goal is to protect yourself from scammers, then picking 3 users randomly from a selection of users when you don't know who to trust yourself is superior to trusting no-one at all, but far inferior to just keeping Default Trust. While Default Trust still exists, you are far safer not setting a custom trust list until you have been here long enough and know yourself who you would and would not trust, rather than just selecting users you don't know at random and hoping for the best.

Also, the suggested list contains several members who are not DT1 or DT2. You can see the criteria for generating the list in the post I linked to above.


This was only in the case of Default Trust not existing, so you were supposed to add three members rather than have no trust list at all. It does not apply to users who have a fully customized trust list.

Ooft. Only 7 points separating the top 4. All to play for!

You can use me as an example to prove that Loyce is correct: http://loyce.club/trust/ranking/ (I'm number 31). At the time of making this post, I am on DT1 with 13 250+ votes and only 3 10+ votes.

Therefore LFC_Bitcoin will become DT1 after theymos performs the next update.

It all comes back to due diligence, and it is the same pattern of behaviour we see with ICOs. People see some piece of advertising, and are then completely happy sending their documents, their hard earned money, or both to some anonymous stranger after doing exactly zero research or reading about the project, and then act surprised when they get scammed. This is just the latest in a long line of persistently shady activity shown by Coinbase over the years. I would suggest anyone closing their account with Coinbase does some research before jumping ship to a new exchange.

The only glimmer of hope here is for EU citizens, due to last year's GDPR laws from the EU meaning companies are legally required to delete your data on request. Coinbase might still ignore the laws, but there is at least the incentive of avoiding a hefty fine for them to actually delete your data as requested.

I would make no differentiation between signature campaigns for ICOs, STOs, UTOs, ETOs, IEOs, any other TLA of your choice, exchanges, casinos, mixers, or any other signature campaign. There is no altcoin or token that is worth giving away your identity to a stranger, and there is no bitcoin paying campaign which even comes close to an amount of money which would even make me consider it. The risk is just way too high.

I'm not sure it's really a hidden page as such, it's just the standard XML sitemap.


There are various boards which are not accessible to standard members, such as the Staff Board and the VIP/Donator Board. Just because some board numbers aren't visible, doesn't necessarily mean the board was removed.

Ahh, that thread by Lauda is probably where I first encountered that page when I was a newbie then. Perhaps it should be more widely advertised, including a link on the Trust Page of anyone without a custom trust list?


The original post by theymos explains how the list is populated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0), but there is no guarantee things haven't changed since then. Essentially the top 60 users based on his criteria are selected, and 30 are displayed at random, with higher trusted users having a higher chance of appearing on the list.

Because people just can't keep him on ignore. I understand the appeal of trying to refute his points, as I occasionally get sucked in to the same thing with flat Earthers, creationists, etc, but just like these latter groups, there is literally nothing you can say that will change his mind. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.

I've not been following his most recent nonsense (as he remains firmly on ignore), but it seems that Loyce has put his suggested criteria* firmly to bed, as it makes fairly little difference to the list of DT1s (and probably no difference whatsoever to the list of DT2s). Inb4 he decides you should need 2000 activity and 100 merit to be allowed to be on DT1.

---

*1500/2000 activity and 100 merit, if I read things correctly? What a coincidence that these criteria perfectly fit cryptohunter himself.

This new is several days old, as reported in this tweet: https://twitter.com/Cryptopia_NZ/status/1100565721799479296

The more interesting news is that they plan to re-open in "read only" mode on Monday. Presumably that means no deposits, trading, or withdrawals, but only allowing users to see their balances. No update yet when they would be aiming to move out of "read only" mode.

There is also no update as far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) as to if and how much they will be compensating affected users, which is the only thing that most people care about.

Sounds just like 99% of other shitcoins. Hell, you could be describing XRP, but that doesn't stop people buying it. If this wasn't going to be a stablecoin, I'd probably buy a bunch just to flip - with 2 billion monthly users who are happy to part with all their private data for nothing, you can guarantee there's enough even bigger idiots in there who will part with their money for this trash.

Facebook already tried a digital currency a few years ago called Facebook Credits. It barely lasted a year between official launch and the announcement it was being discontinued.

I'm actually not sure. I definitely saw that page at some point when I was a newbie, because I remember being overwhelmed with being told I should be picking names from a list of users I had never spoken to or interacted with, and then deciding to close the window and ignore the whole thing. theymos' suggestion in the thread I linked to (forcing newbies to set a trust list before being able to view marketplace topics) obviously never came about, so it's not that either.

Perhaps someone else could shed some light on this? Perhaps I'm mistaken and newbies don't see it at all, and I just followed the link from another thread somewhere.

It is impossible to write an algorithm for "suggested users" which take in to account the trustworthiness or shadiness of their individual posts or signatures. If you want theymos to start hand-picking users to include on a list of suggestions, then that is essentially a big step back toward the centralized DT system we had before.

Novices could easily fall in to a traps, which is why I think forcing custom trust lists is counter-productive. Recommending them is fine, but the whole point of default trust is to try to protect the newer forum members who don't know who they can trust yet. Forcing them to pick from a list of users that they don't know doesn't really achieve anything. Much better that we recommend they spend some time learning who they can trust first, whilst having at least a bit of protection from default trust ratings.

Couple of small corrections:

Patrol (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;patrol) actually shows you the latest 200 posts from only newbies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent shows you the latest 100 posts from all users.

That shows you a list of recent posts by all users in that board. You can also add ";patrol" to the end to narrow it down to only newbie posts.

Also worth reminding people you can chain boards together in the same link, such as: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;boards=7,8,57

261 is indeed the "last" publicly available board, which you can see from the sitemap here: https://bitcointalk.org/sitemap.php?t=b