Looks like localbitcoins managed to shut this down pretty quickly after it started up actually, but the hackers still managed to make off with just shy of 8 BTC ($28,000) from 5 users (assuming that 1 address is the only address they used). Wonder if localbitcoins will compensate the users affected?

Once again, we have to wonder why users keep leaving large amount of funds on exchanges. Say it with me now: Not your keys, not your bitcoin. Not your keys, not your bitcoin. Not your keys, not your bitcoin. Not your keys, not your bitcoin.

Ouch. So all in they are taking 11.9% fee to transfer coins to cash, 4% fee to exchange cash to crypto, 2-4% premium on the exchange rate (according to twitter), and higher transaction fees to transfer your coins out. And for the privilege of them taking about 20% of your money, you have to go through full KYC procedures.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. It is a money making scheme for Coinstar, nothing more.

Not quite. The idea is that they take a huge cut of the money. Their website says 11.9%, but this varies by location and can be even higher. So if you dumb in $100 worth of coins, you'll get back $88 in notes, and the machine takes $12 profit. If you want, you can count the coins out yourself, bag them up, and take them to a bank who will change to notes for free, or you can pay for the convenience of using a Coinstar machine.

It does seem a bit of a round about way of doing things. You have to change coins to cash, then cash to a voucher, then redeem your voucher with a Coinstar account, then transfer out your bitcoins. No doubt there are other fees they charge on top of the 11.9% coin to cash fee. Why not just take your coins to your bank, dump them straight in to your account for free, and then buy bitcoin your preferred way from there?

Bingo. Just like most of the "Why was I banned?" threads that pop up in meta, the red trusted users usually know exactly what they've done, and know fine well it was against the rules. Many of them will also have done other things in the past that could earn them more red trust or even a ban. They don't want to appeal because they know full well that an appeal won't be successful, and by kicking up a fuss, someone is likely to go through their post history and discover their plagiarism or account selling or Ponzi promotion or whatever else it was they did in the past. So instead they create a new account to complain about cults, gangs, mafia, inner circles, abuse, and all the rest of it, without ever actually presenting any evidence to support their points.

That's not what the thread is about, like, at all, which you would know if you spent some time reading it. Everyone realizes you have "skin in the game" of trying to make people forget about shady behavior that happened in the past, particularly in relation to Ponzis, meaning your appeal to emotion (Why spread hate guys!?!? Think of the reputations!!) is both see-through and disingenuous.

Computers don't experience emotions. Stop trying to fools us with your mind circuit games.

But yes, this is very useful. Using the trust dump to see users' trust lists is easy enough, but using it to see who trusts or distrusts a particular user is time consuming and clunky - your list makes this much easier. Your suggestion regarding users with 8 or 9 inclusion is a good one. What might also be useful is to mark which users are currently DT1 - 9 inclusions isn't that relevant if the user in question also has 10 DT1 exclusions.

Boring layout isn't really an issue - it is uncluttered and easy to navigate.

We all got the same nonsense tag with the same nonsense reference. Sounds like OP is a bit angry that someone exposed his scam project before it could take off, and he got red tagged as a result. Obviously, the whole "team" of DT members is in on the conspiracy.

I wonder where OP went to anyway? He promised he had loads of "evidence" and was going to "expose" us. I'm sure there is absolutely no way he was lying...

A combination of all those things. Signatures require earning 10 merit, or you have to spend 1 merit every month to continue to be allowed to use a signature. More mods to delete spam and lock threads more rapidly. Some sort of incentive for good reports (such as reported badges) to encourage more users to report. Hand out temporary bans of increasing length to serial spammers - I keep seeing the same names showing up over and over again on my report list, always marked good and their posts deleted, yet still not banned even after multiple, multiple offences.

What do Amazon have to gain by accepting cryptocurrency?

To start accepting bitcoin, they would also need to be able to refund orders in cryptocurrency, as well as solve problems regarding "stuck" transactions, hacked/lost/stolen accounts with outstanding balance on them, etc. They would need to set up hot and cold wallets, a means of converting to fiat, new crypto support staff and teams, new tax regulations, etc. It would be a huge undertaking for them. Now, what do they have to gain from it? Some new customers, sure, but probably not enough (yet) to justify their initial set up costs.

Yes, it would be great for all businesses to start accepting crypto, but at the end of the day, these are private businesses and will only undertake something if they think it will bring them more profit.

As DaveF said, although saving dust seems at first glance like a bad idea because of fees, you are always going to have to spend those fees to spend that dust (provided you are not splitting your coins up even more), whether it is one at a time as and when you use the dust from your "spending wallet", or whether it is all the fees at once when you spend all the dust in your "savings wallet". At least in the savings wallet, you can both wait until fees are low and just a set a very low fee and be happy to wait a couple of days for it to confirm - after all, if it is there just to be saved then speed isn't really an issue.

The best option overall is to select your UTXOs to keep dust to a minimum (regardless of where you are sending it), and do a bulk transfer of coins to your "savings wallet" on a monthly basis.

Took me about 0.5 seconds to find mine, haha. It's your own fault for signing up with a normal username containing only letters. You should have picked something ugly, with symbols, and a nightmare to type out like mine, then you stand out a mile away.

Oh, absolutely. Samsung is worth many billions more than the entire market cap of all cryptocurrencies. Risking their reputation by stealing a relatively tiny amount of crypto makes absolutely no business sense. My concern isn't with Samsung, however. Any and every web wallet has the same security risks regardless of who owns it. Unfortunately, as you say, many still choose convenience over security.

This is also speculation, of course. It hope it is something a bit more secure than a web wallet after all.

Are we sure this isn't just a web wallet? Given that most of the Samsung software that comes bundled with Samsung phones requires you to create a Samsung account, I wouldn't be surprised if this app is no different. As others have said, I also don't see why they would open themselves up to the possibility of phones being lost/stolen/damaged and users losing their coins forever, and all the complaints and liability that would come with that. The word "KeyStore" to me just makes it sound like Samsung will be storing your keys and you will be able to recover your account if you lose your phone.

I've been advocating for this for a while, but 3-5 is still too low in my opinion. I think a 10 merit minimum is the way to go. 1 (and probably 3) is too easy to beg, buy or trade for, and with the number of airdropped sMerits still waiting to be used, we will be seeing plenty of 1 merit spammers for a long time yet.

I also think changing it from 10 total merit to 10 earned merit would also be a good step. There are plenty of spammers in more senior ranks too. If you haven't been able to earn 10 merit in the space of a year, then you are almost certainly a spammer.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:


This just isn't true. This might be your opinion of trust, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of trolls/crazies/scammers/etc on this forum I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and I don't need a failed trade to take place to know that. Similarly, there are a handful of users who I would trust enough to make a trade without escrow, despite not having positive feedbacks for trading. Trust is based on behavior, integrity, character, principles, etc, as well as a good trading history. If you only want to pay attention to feedback left for trades then that's your prerogative, but many other users find feedback left for other reasons useful, as is evidenced by the current list of DT1 members who were voted in by the community based on the perceived usefulness of their feedback.

I'm trying to help you OP, and you reward me with a negative trust? That's not very nice.

As I've said multiple times, please provide evidence that any of these users (myself included) have left inappropriate negative trust so we can look in to it, remove the incorrect red tags and perhaps even consider removing the user in question from DT if they are truly a "fraudster", "cheater" or "scammer" like you claim. If you don't provide evidence, we have no choice but to ignore your ramblings.


On another note, if you ever do manage to achieve this:Please let me know ASAP. I would be very interested in writing your case up for a medical journal. "The World's First Literal Case Of 'Shits and Giggles'".

Yeah, fair point. However, I don't think in this case there is any suggestion or suspicion the money was originally stolen - certainly not in the description Lauda gave - only that the project was likely going to scam in the future.

I wouldn't go as far as calling them "abusers". I've not run the numbers, but I'd wager suchmoon would be number one simply by virtue of having given out almost 10k merits. Pretty much everyone who has ever given suchmoon more than 18 merit will appear on that list.

Keep a proportion to cover that work that was done and return the rest.

It doesn't matter that the money came from scammers - stealing is stealing, regardless of the owner of the funds or how they acquired them. The fact that they money paid may have been used to scam people in the future does not give you a right to it. Keep whatever payment is fair to cover the work done so far, and return the rest.

Those are funny looking cats.