May's deal won't pass. Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems and the other minor parties will oppose it. The DUP are also going to oppose it because of the issues surrounding the backstop, which she tried to resolve and has failed to do so. That would be enough to kill it, but it also looks like around 100 of her own MPs would vote it down. It has no chance, and honestly, it doesn't deserve one. It is nothing short of ridiculous that this is the best we could come with in two years of negotiating. It essentially has the UK following all the same EU rules that it currently does, but removes the UK's voice from all future discussions about those rules. May knows this, and if she has her way, the deal won't ever make it to a vote. The other parties might try and force it however, with threats of Votes of No Confidence if she doesn't.

The general feeling does seem to be leaning more and more towards going for a second referendum. More and more right wing commentators and right wing discussion forums such as /r/ukpolitics are thinking that. I don't think it is a betrayal of the national will or any of the other ridiculous rhetoric that has been bandied about. The initial vote was made on incomplete information and some outright lies. The "Leave" side promised £350 million a week extra for health - we now know that will categorically not happen, and in fact the NHS is set to be much worse off under Brexit due to staffing and supply issues. I would think the best ballot paper for a second referendum would have 3 options: Brexit with no deal, Brexit with May's deal, Stay in the EU. A single transferable vote would be the only fair way to run this with 3 options, as otherwise you would almost guarantee "Stay in the EU" would win by splitting the Brexit vote between two possibilities.

May survived a Vote of No Confidence from her own party, but there is still the possibility of a Vote of No Confidence in the government from opposition parties. Whether or not this would pass is up for debate. Everyone except the Tories and the DUP would likely support this vote. The DUP may or may not join, but even some Brexiteer Tories have been quoted as saying they would vote against their own party as a rebellion against the terribleness of May's deal.

The whole situation also makes the possibility of Scottish independence and Irish reunification more likely. The entire thing is an omnishambles.

With even a very cursory search, I've found three threads in the last 6 months discussing this. In every thread, it is generally considered to be a good idea, but theymos has not commented, so we can only assume he doesn't want to show banned accounts publicly for whatever reason. In that case, I would propose a simple alternative - everyone with over 1000/2000/5000/pick-a-number "good" reports gets to see which accounts are banned. These are the people who are doing the majority of the reporting and catching the majority of the plagiarizers, and these are the people whose time is being wasted the most by investigating users who are already banned. Since we know that banned accounts are already marked as such for staff, then it should be fairly easy to implement.

I don't think plagiarism is in the spirit of this forum.


I sympathize, but if being able to join bounty campaigns is this important to them, then all the more reason they should have read the rules. It doesn't exactly take much effort to write a single original sentence, which is what most of these bounty campaigns will pay for.


In my opinion, there is no valid "excuse" for plagiarism. I assume the cases you are talking about are when people have copy and pasted various announcements that were obviously announcements. I agree not deserving of an outright ban (unless they are obviously trying to monetize it by adding their own referral links to the bottom of the post or something similar), but it still isn't an excuse and they should properly reference their source.


We know users like this don't read the rules, but if plagiarizers are rightly ridiculed whenever they are encountered, word may spread and it could serve as a deterrent to others.


I don't know why you post in every ban appeal thread or thread about plagiarism asking for leniency for the user(s) in question. Passing someone else's work off as your own, especially when you are doing it simply to get paid, is completely unacceptable in any and all walks of life, from the most early stages of elementary school up to the highest levels of professional careers. A single case of plagiarism is enough to get you expelled from university or fired from a job. I don't know why that should be any different here, regardless of the user's real life circumstances. There isn't much that will get you permanently banned on this forum, but this is one line that we should not be crossing.

As someone who is regularly busting plagiarizers, if you know of a checker that is super accurate and can check tons of posts at once, please let me know.

My experience of online checkers is that they accept 500-1000 words at once, their accuracy is sporadic at best, they are easily fooled by a couple of changed characters, words, or punctuation, and you have to complete 10 captchas for each search. Now, I appreciate I am talking about free checkers here and you may be envisioning using a paid service, but the limitations are the same. Lots of plagiarism will only be found through manual checking to identify text-spinning or changed words as well as posts that have been run through an auto-translator. There is simply not enough time or energy to manually review hundreds or thousands of posts per case.

Exactly this. It seems like a few key players are essentially using Coinbase to run their own massive pump and dump scheme, or at very least, insider trading scandal.



Marketcap is an almost meaningless statistic.

XRP is at least a well known and established coin, regardless of your opinion on it. The same cannot be said about many of the shitcoins that Coinbase are choosing to list. Interestingly however, XRP would also not pass Coinbase's own Digital Asset Framework, given that the very first point (1.1) in the Framework includes that the coin should be decentralized, with XRP most certainly is not.

Original thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071287.msg48016152#msg48016152

I am indeed the original creator. Should have put my name on it. I made this after a suggestion from hilarious, and based it heavily (as you can see in the original thread) on a "peadophile bingo" that he had found online. Feel free to do what you would like with it. I have the master as a .psd file with everything in separate layers and easily editable - I can send you a copy if it would help you "spruce up" your generated images.

I made it very quickly with excuses I could remember off the top of my head, and I've missed out some fairly common ones. "I was drunk" is a particular favorite of mine that should have been included.

Not to be outdone by peak Mourinho smashing the water bottles a few weeks ago, we have now also reached peak Phil Jones. The last time United scored an own goal in the Champions League was in 2011 against Benfica, thanks to none other than Phil Jones.

---

It was an ankle-breaking tackle. A clear red. https://streamable.com/juors

Two straight reds, one for each team, in the Bayern - Ajax game though, for two frankly horrendous challenges. Plus two penalties in last 15 minutes and a massively offside own goal in the 95th, followed by 4 Ajax players trying to beat up Neuer. What a ridiculous game.

I assume you mean 100 million TH/s, not 100 TH/s.

Regardless, who says the hashrate should be that high? The hashrate has never been 100 million TH/s. The highest it has ever been is around 61 million TH/s.



Not really. The current hashrate is 35 million TH/s. The first time it was ever that high was only in June of this year. For the first 9.5 years of its life, bitcoin had a hashrate below 35 million TH/s, the majority of that time being significantly below this level, and yet survived without a 51% attack.

If you guys actually read the thread before posting your spam, you will see that this nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. The wallets and funds in question belong to Coinbase, who posted a notification before they made any transactions that they would be moving funds around to improve security - so presumably moving them to a new form of cold storage.

It is not whales, the coins are not about to be sold, and it will have no effect on the market.

Your post and strategy seem sensible, but this one sentence is a big red flag.

There is no absolutely no "definite" about it. You might profit, you might not. You could very well lose close to everything. If it were me, I would certainly aiming for a more balanced portfolio of risk by splitting this 50k investment across different asset classes. Fiat savings, bonds and stocks are the obvious ones, but others might recommend gold, property, etc.

I would also probably be waiting until we get a clearer indication of which way the market is going to move before I placed my first buy order. We could quite easily drop lower before the next bull run.

Given that McAfee used to charge ICOs $105,000 for a single tweet promoting their project, I wonder how much DocAdemic paid McAfee to actually mention them in an article. Perhaps he can use some of that money to recuperate his losses from launching a completely insecure and easily hackable hardware wallet.

The rest of the article is useless. The founder of Cardano thinks Cardano is a good coin and the founder of Skycoin thinks the same thing about Skycoin. Color me shocked.

As pointed out, people who are banned for plagiarism very rarely only plagiarize once. If I come across a post I suspect of plagiarism, I might spend several minutes Googling parts of the post and running it through a plagiarism checker to see if I can find the source. If it comes back clean, but I really suspect it is plagiarized, then I'm now searching to see if it has been auto-translated and plagiarized from another language, or maybe I'm checking some of the other posts made by the user to see if they are easier to find a source for. This is a huge waste of time if the user is already banned, and could be better spent reporting other spammers/plagiarizers.

I mean yes, obviously they are a business and their are entitled to make any moves they see fit to increase their revenue. However, these moves are decidedly shady.

They released a framework 3 months ago for what coins they would consider listing, available here: Coinbase Digital Asset Framework. They then come out and list a bunch of coins that do not meet their own criteria. It is also then revealed that Coinbase investors are also heavily invested in the coins that they have chosen to list: https://beincrypto.com/questionable-coinbase-listing-process-reveals-digital-currency-group-connection/. Given that Coinbase are known to have undertaken shady insider trading surrounding their support of BCH, it isn't exactly a far cry to suspect they would do it again.

You are absolutely right. In my hurry to post my bingo card before he came out with yet another excuse, I glossed over that one entirely. Somewhat embarrassing, since I made the bingo card myself. Good thing I don't play bingo in real life - I would likely lose a lot.

Dzhus now holds the record for ten (10) excuses!

Slow down OP! I'm struggling to keep up over here! Every time I upload my bingo card to imgur you jump in with yet another excuse.



Look on the bright side though - you just SMASHED the previous record of four excuses in one with a record NINE boxes on the bingo card. You have narrowly missed out on making a 5-box row, column or diagonal though, so there is still plenty to play for!

Agreed. This is the same state of affairs that is currently being discussed in the Altcoin Bumping thread. We can report posts all day every day, and completely overwhelm you and the others mods with work, and yet barely make a dent in the spam. We need some top level changes, which I'm pleased to see are now being discussed regarding the Altcoin boards.

In terms of limiting general spam, as you say we need to crack down on the campaigns/campaign managers. Something along the lines of having to submit a list of participants, and if these participants reach a set amount of reported posts which are marked as good, the campaign is shut down. I also think there should be some kind of actual punishment for serial spammers. Spammers don't care about 2 or 3 of their posts being deleted when they can churn out one a minute to hit their campaign requirements. X amount of posts being deleted within Y amount of time resulting in escalating lengths of bans, for example.

Yeah, fair enough. Is there some other better way we can clean up Meta from all this spam? A separate sub-board for account issue threads, such as ban appeals, hacked accounts, locked accounts, etc?

I agree with your point about additional warnings - these spammers don't read the rules, don't read the stickies, don't even read the posts in the thread they are replying to. They certainly won't bother to read any other warnings or rules, regardless of where you plaster them.

However, having 50% of the threads in Meta being ban appeals from plagiarizers is a real headache to sort through, not to mention a waste of everybody's time continually pointing out to them that they will not be unbanned. If we are saying it is too time consuming to state the exact reason for every ban, could we at least update the ban message to state something along the lines of "Bans for plagiarism will never be repealed. Do not bother trying"?

A lucky first half for Liverpool. Rui stopped playing and appealed to the ref instead of trying to tackle or pressure Salah, and Ospina should really have done better. Salah was great as always, but it should never have been a goal. And Liverpool are very lucky not to be down to 10 men after van Dijk's tackle on Mertens. Studs up and very close to a broken ankle. Should have been a straight red.

Edit: Allison might be the best keeper in the world right now. After a phenomenal stoppage time save against Burnley last week to save the game for Liverpool, he makes another phenomenal stoppage time save to save the game against Napoli and ensure Liverpool qualify. What a keeper.

The only downside to this is that you can almost guarantee that if the Announcement board becomes "pay to post a new topic", they will just start spamming their new topics in every other board instead. Obviously these threads will get trashed, but since we have so few moderators, the threads will likely be up for several hours and be spammed to high heaven before they are.

I like the idea of the owner having a "bump" button, and therefore completely eliminating paid bumping by any means. As an add on to this, I would suggest that each user can only bump a maximum of 1/3/5/whatever-number-you-like thread(s) they own per 24 hours, to stop the creation and bumping of mass dummy threads. Might be worth having a caveat that the owner has to at least be a member or have at least 10 earned merit or something similar to stop newbies from creating mass threads.