So, to summarize: you made 3 mistakes:

• You forgot to add terms rejecting users with negative feedback
• You accepted a user with negative feedback and gave him 3 mBTC no deposit bonus
• You said the maximum winnings from the no deposit bonus was 10 mBTC, not 3 mBTC

You're a professional casino, you should be very good at creating strict conditions. Even if you made mistakes (which you've admitted!), you should man up and don't make the user pay for your mistakes.
You've confessed to the allegations, so I've supported the Flag against you.

I really believe what I wrote here:
I am not single-handledly going to destroy your account over this, so I'll leave neutral feedback instead of negative. The type 3 Flag against you needs 2 more DT-supporters to become active. Note that the Flag system requires the Flag creator to withdraw his Support for the Flag when you make the victim(s) whole.
My neutral feedback stays as a warning.

I can't believe you risk having your account and business reputation destroyed over this!

I can confirm this:

That's not a bad idea, but I've adjusted it a bit: I've added a Changelog. All times are Amsterdam time. It only adds a line when something changes, this should also work when you move from DT1 to DT2.
Going from 11 to 12 to 10 and back to 11 exclusions was me testing my update:

And with that, I've changed the title again

I'm not sure what you mean: what is statistically not possible?

You should move (bottom-left) this topic to the Reputation board.

Can you sign a message from an address you posted a long time ago, to prove you're the real owner?

I've joined to test
Username: LoyceV

Update: received! And lost already

Can you post it here in [ code]-tags for verification?

And, if legit, can you create a Scam Accusation topic including the signed message, so you can create a Trust Flag against the user?
This requires proof though, and I'm not going to type a signed message from a screenshot

I noticed this is the second mixer you're accusing.

I've seen similar cases before, and now too I don't think they moved 125 kBTC. I think they moved "only" 1.5kBTC, the rest was just "change". If this would be fiat, you wouldn't see the change that's left in the account, but because of the way Bitcoin works, you get to see it.
Think of it as if someone Scrooge McDuck moves a huge pile of money from one corner of his money bin to another corner, and also uses a few buckets of coins to make a payment.

It's not against the rules, but if you only have a few sMerit to give, you can do that without creating a topic. If you read a good post: Merit it!

Once in a while I go "full Merit source" on someone who's close to the next rank (by going through their post history and targeting just that user with Merit), but that's mainly because theymos overloaded me with sMerit.

Strictly speaking, only Merit sources are not allowed to sell Merit:
Of course, that doesn't mean the community thinks it's okay to sell Merit. It's a bit like account sales: officially it's allowed, but heavily frowned upon.

Can you show which data is incorrect? It should't be: Merit is based on last Friday's data dump (this update was a few days late though), and Trust should be accurate on DT2.

I don't use BPIP, I scrape the Trust scores directly from the forum. This should be accurate, if not, please let me know.
Only my own profile has an inaccuracy:

I can't answer this question, but with the right cookie set, I never have to login, thus never see the captcha. This even works on Tor, as long as you allow cookies.
So I assume the captcha bypass is mainly for Tor users who don't want to use cookies, although I use it (without Tor) when I use LoyceMobile in a private browser (I don't logout LoyceV).

That's spam protection for Newbies. Dot.tk links are fine:

This is a troll account (some say it's owned by banned user korner), created right after theymos DefaultTrust.

I don't think it's necessarily the majority, but their numbers are large enough to make "the internet" in general and "crypto" in particular a scammers' paradise. Most people just aren't ready to be their own bank.
We can't make the internet safe, so I still hope education will make (some) peoples realize it's their own responsibility to be careful who they trust.

Be very careful there, "sting operations" are frowned upon and sometimes lead to negative feedback on the person carrying it out.

I still think merit sales aren't really a problem. It's expensive, we can't stop all abuse, it's a tiny fraction of the total Merit economy, but most of all: it's very obvious when a bad posts receives Merit. Any campaign manager who does his job could easily spot that.

jvdp already has negative feedback for cheating a campaign.

You're right on the scam-part: A fool and his money are soon parted, and there are many fools in crypto.

If I look at Scam Accusations, most scams have nothing to do with account sales. That's why I mentioned spam as a possible consequense of account sales.
You could of course argue this is because account sales are heavily frowned upon, and instantly tagged, so cause and effect could very well be in the right order

Why is this guy still getting any attention? He can fake anything except a signed message, and that's exactly what he's doing. Faking it, until people start believing the BS.
Stop making this guy famous! Just ignore the "news".

No, I'm not really worried about a man in the middle attack on this data.


My data started less than 7 months ago. I didn't even think about using this, so thanks
There's one flaw though: this only includes users who made a post, not the accounts that only changed their password to activate later. I can scrape all 2011 profiles if iasenko wants it (it'll take a day).

Thanks again Let's say the forum was 1 second off, not your time machine

A bit: I wouldn't trust you with anything.

I don't see the value of adding another tag. Anyone who does business with you at -3 can't be helped with -4.

Because none of this can end well for your current account.

You're free to make suggestions

Another thing I noticed: Did you intend to exclude user Renegade? Or did you try to include user ~Renegade? You have a lot to learn about the Trust system

I only sent 0.1 tBTC on-chain: ac7b33813049d3dc9530ac16505a5fc209165cc4e702a2787ab8b1dfe22d4f2a.

Can you post txids for those transactions? I don't think it's going to help much, but I'm curious where the funds went. After all, on-chain funds can't disappear.

So, you tried to troll, but it failed backfired. I admit it was a clever thing to try, but luckily theymos wasn't born yesterday so it didn't work.

May I suggest you click LOGOUT and forget about this account? You've had your fun, I've updated my Trust list viewer just for you, now move on.

Kind reminder and request: please stay on topic in my topic

This is done I don't mind someone spamming his own Trust list, as long as he doesn't pollute the rest.
~DefaultTrust's Trust list now looks like this:

---

---

I know it got more restricted at some point, some older usernames have much weirder characters than "~" in them. It's a pain to deal with, but since the username is used to login, it can't just be changed either.
For new usernames, I think ~ just slipped through. But there's not really a problem, I just tested it, and adding "~DefaultTrust" to your Trust list means excluding DefaultTrust, and doesn't mean including ~DefaultTrust.
To exclude ~DefaultTrust, use:
The only reason I haven't excluded him yet is because he's not important enough. I don't think he'll ever reach DT2, so his Trust list abuse is not a problem.