Remember that the auction is extended to 30 minutes after the last bid. Right now auction would be ending at 20:30:08 GMT.

Winner! Congrats.

Final hour! Current highest bid is 0.021 BTC by JanEmil.

Last 60 minutes to go!

Good point.

Current highest bid is 0.725 BTC by greenplastic.

Joe1823 has informed me that he's unable to make this safety deposit for now.

Therefore, his bids are not valid and the current highest bid is 0.75 BTC by greenplastic.

To ensure that you're a serious bidder, I must ask you to place safety deposit of 0.2 BTC to 1739GEWKubK3yuSzjXTnbXkSV8gdf5uqmF. This will count as a payment for the winning bid if you win, or be returned to you if you do not win the auction. Upon not completing a winning bid payment as a winner of the auction, the safety deposit will be forfeited.

Your bid will be valid when the deposit is done.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Current highest bid ^. Thanks for all the bids so far.

Final five hours of the auction! Auction ends at 20:00 GMT! (countdown timer)

Arch Linux.

I'd guess something like i3 would interest you. https://i3wm.org/

bump

Bump.


Current highest bid ^.

Ok. I'm not sure would the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" help that much as there are tons of red flags anyway in those dealings. Users falling for those scams are likely not reading much of anything, so how big are chances they'd notice or care about some warnings. I'd guess that people fall on scams like those that are on other websites, too. There simply isn't a way to protect some people from getting scammed.

E.g. in #bitcoin-otc people sometimes got scammed even though they knew perfectly well how to defend themselves against getting scammed. Most often the reason was laziness -- a simple command to a bot would've revealed a scammer. A bot warned about most of the scammers, but still people fell on simple stuff. And bot warns about Paypal and CC's, still people get scammed by chargebackers, and so on..

Right. My concerns were for the targeted scam attempts. I wonder if threads can be SEO'd to make what you described a significant issue? Have there been cases like this?

This is a problem that has no real fix. Scammers will then start sending manipulated screen shots or manipulate user to change victims trust list. Etc.
Again, I think it's good that default trust system gets no more space than it already has. If non-registered visitors saw some trust score / ratings, based on DT obviously, it would give more legitimacy to DT.

Just report all offtopic posts as meta section allows no offtopic.

It's better that it requires some "effort" to view as DT. We don't want to give any more legitimacy to DT. People should make their own trust lists, DT is meant to be just the default setting for newbies.

I guess that BitcoinPenny meant to add someone else who also goes by the name Mike but his forum account name is not Mike.

---

Also for whoever this may interest, I will keep https://anduck.net/files/bct_trustlists.txt updated.

Congrats Minerjones!

I am solely saying that vendor bidding is not unethical, scam, untrustworthy or bad behavior in general, when it's applicable. Vendor bidding is done in various auctions around the world. I fully understand that it is not part of Bitcointalk auctions. I told you this many many times, but you just refuse to listen. You just keep on telling me how you think that vendor bidding is absolutely dishonest and that I'm bullshitting you when I say that it's actually quite common practice. I presented you various sources where you can go and educate yourself, but you refused and instead believe your prejudice.

I don't defend my mistake. (This is obvious from my very first message regarding this.) I defend myself when Vod (and you?) call me a scammer, because I've not scammed anyone.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Even though his rating mentions the vendor bid. He misunderstood me illogically, and didn't listen when I told him how he read my words illogically. See this.

You're talking about my thought process with quite a confidence.

Your description of why you're rating me is not in line with your other output. For example, you implied that your DT position played a significant role in that event, as you felt that by rating me negatively I wouldn't need to "worry about Vod anymore". That is abuse of position and so called "power tripping".

Also, you're applying double standards as you're not red-rating someone who changed auction rules mid-auction. Yet you do a fresh red-rating to someone who didn't know about bitcointalk auction standard (and didn't change auction rules.)

---

Have a try at explaining how the bold statement is untrue? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction ~3 years ago. Bitcointalk auction standard doesn't include vendor bidding. Anyway, your logic is flawed and your attempts at steering opinions or whatever with such no content sentences are pathetic.

---

This makes no sense. What's your beef with me? Your prejudice is what you call "common sense", now? How about digging up real common sense and stop harassing me.

I've now removed my negative ratings to you. I'll briefly explain why.

First of all, I am all for burying the hatchet.
Secondly, some events in the Internet where no monetary or other kind of real damage was done, do not really give a complete image of person's trustworthiness.
Given that Vod has worked in various ways to improve the forum, and based on other peoples (positive) views about him, I think that my rating was not anymore reasonable as it now also carries DT weight.