You've reached DT2 2 months ago. According to BPIP, cabalism13 (who was on DT1 at that time) added you to his Trust list on the same day you left him this positive feedback:
Since you didn't risk anything, I'd say your feedback should be neutral instead of positive. Adding you to DT2 around the moment you left positive feedback looks like Trust selfscratching to me. You're not the only one, Cabalism13 has put three other users who left him positive feedback on DT2 by himself.

I can add a link to my topic to my quote: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

In my opinion, the proper tag for Trust abuse is a neutral tag. See me doing this here. But you've left a neutral tag already for Lucius, so well done

---

---

@Lucius: May I suggest you change this tag to neutral? Your red feedback doesn't fit theymos' description:
You may also want to read this post from theymos where he shares his intention for the feedback system.
@cabalism13: I'm surprised you're not mentioned in this topic yet, while you're the one who put Lucius on DT2. May I suggest to reconsider this?
@other DT1s: I don't like excluding users over small things, so in my opinion it would be best if Lucius/Cabalism13 resolve this. Too many pages have been filled for this already!

I'll start by displaying a block explorer I'm familiar with: c9cfd7e0cda60ab0d21d3b7402b141953f48b3bebc9ca7bd32f1caa78c31a3fb on Blockchair.

This transaction looks normal to me. Every address can have more than one UTXO, and in this case, 4 inputs from 15Z5YJaaNSxeynvr6uW6jQZLwq3n1Hu6RX were used, while other inputs remain untouched.

Think of each UTXO as a coin in your piggy bank: you can spend all your coins at once, or you can spend only some of your coins. You can't use fractions of your coins without getting change, so if you only have quarters, you'll need to get out entire quarters at once. But if you have 12 quarters and a dime, it's totally fine to spend 4 quarters and your dime without touching the remaining 8 quarters.

That's incorrect. Your post triggered this update, which shows you've earned 58 Merit in the last 120 days.

@Zwei: feel free to use my Merit-counting service, anyone posting the correct string triggers an update.

That certainly happens, but it doesn't answer my question what Last of the V8s is being accused of.

I'm not confortable discussing another guy's nuts. Let's just say I'm more into girls Bitcoin

Thanks, you're right. I was lazy and used this:
The correct code is:
I tested it, and it's still wrong I won't update my screenshot for this.

It's so easy:
This is what I do:

• Copy the userID (2819111) to your clipboard.
• Click http://loyce.club/archive/members/
• Put your cursor behind the link
• Press these keys: CTRL-V Backspace Backspace Backspace Backspace / CTRL-V .html Enter

(the ".html" are 5 separate keys)
That's it! When used it it, my browser remembers the URLs, so all I do is type "posts", "members" or "topics", my browser completes the URL, then paste the number, hit Backspace 4 times, type a slash ("/"), paste the number again, type .html and hit Enter. The whole thing takes about 3 seconds (after some practice). End result: http://loyce.club/archive/members/281/2819111.html. 3 of his posts have a "screenshot".

I'm still unsure what exactly he's being accused of. Wiping his Trust list, using only DefaultTrust, and then making a new Trust list doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.

I've never experienced this bug. I still forget to click "self-moderated" sometimes though.

No. You'll lose the self-moderated status, and won't get it back if you move back the topic.
I vaguely remember this was possible back in the days, until someone pointed it out it was patched.

There's a related exploit that does work though: if you create a topic in Auctions, you can't edit or remove your posts. But if you move it to another board, you can edit or remove posts before you move it back. That shouldn't be possible either.

That's good to know, until now most of the monsters posted here are white.
For a green one, I tried Pacman:

Edited from an image I found on Google. So partial credits go to this link, which I can't verify because I block that site via my hosts file.

Send them a link to the archived topic

User's can't delete topics.

It depends: I don't trust the app (like most apps), so I wouldn't recommend installing it on a device that's in use for serious things. I've installed it on a tablet, and now that I think about it, the tablet holds some crypto already so it's not the best choice. But I'm running out of devices for testing
Apart from that, I'd recommend not only installing Phoenix, but testing several wallets and choosing on your own which you like most. These are the ones I've tested on Android:

• BlueWallet (custodial LN, non-custodial on-chain)
• Eclair (non-custodial LN, non-custodial on-chain
• Wallet of Satoshi (custodial LN)
• Mycelium (non-custodial on-chain)
• Coinomi (non-custodial on-chain, also many altcoins and some Forkcoins)
• Electrum (non-custodial on-chain)
• Bither/bitpie (I used this for low-value Forkcoins but nowadays it mostly crashes when I try that)

The usual disclaimer applies: "never send more than you're willing to lose", especially when using LN. But by all means, throw a few bucks tens of thousands of satoshis at it, and try it. Send from your LN-wallet, to a LN-casino to, to your other wallet, to another LN-casino and back to another one of your wallets. You can do all this in less than a minute, which is just amazing.

As for easy LN, I think BlueWallet and Phoenix both have their use case. I've been using BlueWallet a lot longer, so I'd like to know how you think they compare.

My assumption until now what that HCP's theory is correct. It would be interesting to test your "trick", by sending a second transaction from a confirmed input with slightly higher fee than the average. If you're right, the CPFP transaction should confirm before the second transaction. If that's correct, (some) miners are dumb and this would be a really cool trick to reduce fees.

Instead of making a second transaction, you could also look at all transactions in the same block, and see if there is any transaction that has a lower fee than your average.[/quote]

Johoe's Bitcoin Mempool Size Statistics shows the fee can drop quite a lot once a single block has been minded, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a 3 sat/byte transaction included even when your wallet says 30 sat/byte is needed. In my experience, many wallets are just bad at fee estimates.

---

---

In general, to reduce fees:

• Consolidate your small inputs when you're not in a hurry.
• Use native SegWit (Bech32; addresses starting with bc1q....
• Use coin control: manually select which inputs you're going to use. Don't use more inputs than needed. This reduces the transaction size and thus the fee.

Maybe. Maybe some people added me to their Trust list because I've sent 13239 Merit to 1744 users in 6624 transactions. With 206 Trust inclusions, it's probably even likely one or more users added me for the wrong reasons. But that's not something I can stop, nor is it something I'll change my Trust list or Merit habits for.
Come to think of it, it's also likely some users get excluded because they Merit certain posts.

Right.

In Ratimov's Russian translation, FontSeli asked how this can be useful for a normal person (thanks Google Translate). I'll answer this here.

I can think of several other uses:

• Say you have a list of your old Bitcoin addresses and want to know if they hold any balance. But you don't want to let any block explorer or Electrum server know which address you're looking at. By downloading all addresses, you can easily do a local search without anyone else knowing which address you're looking for.
• I've also seen cases where someone has an incomplete Bitcoin address, and wants to know if it's worth to pursue recovering the private key. Block explorers don't let you search for incomplete addresses. As a rediculous example, here are all funded addresses that contain "Loyce":

Peloso did much worse:

I wouldn't call only making some changes to your Trust list untrustworthy. It would be a different story if it includes a PM to all users asking to include him too, and so far I haven't received such a PM.
I think most users didn't even notice the inclusion. I didn't notice it myself until you posted it here (I overlooked the "NEW" in the long list):

It's okay, this topic doesn't get much discussion anyway, and it doesn't interfere with my weekly updates.

I've never created a Telegram bot. TryNinja made one last month.

This could actually work! I already have a list of all posts in a topic for posts made in the last 10 months. TryNinja has the same data.
@TryNinja, can you add this to your bot? You could send a notification to all users who posted in a thread when it gets trashed. Unfortunately, that will also include users who's posts are deleted (by themselves, by the creator of a self-moderated thread, or by a moderator) because there is no easy way to trace deleted posts.
I could make something myself, but I can't do notifications and this fits a Telegram bot much better.

I'm still scraping all older posts (example). This will be done around August. After that TryNinja can have the data (probably around 60 GB) to include all topics (except for hidden boards).

There's a complication though: yesterday, I posted in this topic as a warning, knowing it would get deleted after my report. The user was Nuked, and the deleted topic didn't show up in modlog. That means topics created by Nuked users should also trigger a notification, and I didn't keep track of which user created which topic. Once I'm done scraping all posts, I could get this data again by checking which user made the first post in each topic (without downloading 5.25 million topics again).

Example:
The latest deleted topic in modlog is this topic. It has posts by 2 users, chote85 and mikeywith. I don't think I've ever had a topic deleted, but I assume chote85 will get a notification. So only mikeywith needs to receive a notification. Ideally, it should include a link to his original post because it's quite a loss of his effort.

Does this help? See all unedited (or deleted) posts made by ShowOff.
I also have this planned:

Mine as mentioned above will indeed be on-demand only.

Assuming symmetry, and assuming not touching the green boarders by a "diagonal" pixel: 288230376151711744 combinations.

One page holds up to 20 posts. My guess is that takes more resources to load than adding just one post.

The reason you can't report posts from a user's post history, is that the validity of a post can depend on other posts in the same topic. That makes bulk reporting tricky too: you'll still need to check each post individually.