I will bet 1 person here 0.000001 btc that if OG gets audited he will get a refund
To say that og doesn't pay his taxes is a joke. Isn't his wife/girlfriend an accountant or a lawyer or something like that
Who’s gonna escrow? I can  |
|
|
|
Vod is giving multiple people 50 merit for very low effort posts (they are on topic and not necessarily wrong) in a thread discussing something that reflects on him poorly. He is giving away merit to people supporting him. I am referring to this thread. Although he is also giving 50 merit to others who have recently supported him. His status as a merit source should be revoked and reversing the merit transactions should be considered. So you are saying that if his post wasn't about OG than you wouldn't be knocking him since you are an OG supporter? If he wasn't a merit source it would be okay for him to give away his merit as he sees fit correct? Who is to say that 50 merit he gave came from his earned smerit He is giving away 50 merit (the monthly maximum) to anyone supporting his position. |
|
|
|
|
Vod has a history of acting this way.
Frankly I am surprised anyone even decided to try to stand up to him. It is a good thing people are finally opening their eyes about him.
|
|
|
|
So that there is no possible way for my feedback to be misconstrued; I have removed the 500 BTC risked. I can tell that it will create a divide, and distract from the actual issue meant to be tackled. Somehow, I doubt that is going to change anything.
Since you have now endangered Vod due to the people who are going to hunt him down thinking he was a scammer who took or was trying to take 500BTC, should I be leaving you feedback now?  That is a ridiculous assertion and is based on the fact Vod is your employer. |
|
|
|
Vod is giving multiple people 50 merit for very low effort posts (they are on topic and not necessarily wrong) in a thread discussing something that reflects on him poorly. He is giving away merit to people supporting him. I am referring to this thread. Although he is also giving 50 merit to others who have recently supported him. His status as a merit source should be revoked and reversing the merit transactions should be considered. |
|
|
|
Plagiarism is undoubtedly both very wrong, and a major problem within the forum, but I don't see the benefit of removing someone who only did damage (plagiarized) years ago, especially if they are now otherwise being a member who is contributing to the forum. There's a flaw in this ideology. Let me simplify the structure of my thoughts into four alternative timelines for a given plagiarist. P:= plagiarizing user S:= plagiarized post. 1) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P, over a long time, contributes much to the forum. S is discovered years later. P is let go scot-free. 2) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is an average user and much time passes. S is discovered years later. P is permanently banned. 3) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is trying to contribute to the forum: they add some contribution. S is discovered weeks later. P is permanently banned. 4) P posts S. No one catches onto P. P is not trying to contribute to the forum. S is discovered weeks later. P is permanently banned. The difference between 1 and 3 is the time between the discovery of S and the time it was posted. One user is pardoned because of their contributions. Another is not because they did not fulfill the baseline requirements of minimum contribution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Retort: "They should have contributed right away!" If both users 1 and 3 had the same localized post quality and contributory status, the situation would play our similarly. (after all, if you're copy-pasting, it's unlikely your post quality suddenly spikes) I am not arguing for anyone who has plagiarized to get off scott free, I am saying they shouldn’t be banned forever. There is a reason why most jurisdictions has statute of limitations laws, and I think there should similarly be limits for forum punishments, especially permanent bans. If the plagiarism is only a week or a month old, any subsequent contributions are not going to be relevant. If a year or two has gone by, and in that time, the person has not caused harm, he has shown himself to be someone who will not cause additional harm if he is allowed to continue participating. The person who plagiarized a month ago has not shown this. Also the administration should have caught the person sooner for the one plagiarized two years ago. Someone could have a legitimate defense to what they did, but might have lost the evidence or forgotten the circumstances under which they made a few posts years ago. I think the number of people with legitimate defenses are few and far between, however *everyone* has the right to get to try to defend themselves. |
|
|
|
Pointless
The point of you exclaiming you're blocking my PM's is what exactly? Me thinks he wants to virtue signal  This thread is a very good example of what is wrong with the trust system. |
|
|
|
Or is it possible that the person lovesmayfamilis mistakenly copied the text manually instead of selecting the quote?
Not possible. He copied the entire post and didn’t add anything to what was copied. |
|
|
|
I'll would almost guarantee that he has the home address and real name of OGNasty in case something like theft were to happen
I sure hope so. I'd consider that absolutely required, regardless of whether a multisig address is used, for security, to sign the contract and for tax purposes. That would also allow to make sure the chosen treasurers are really different people and not related to each other, which worried QS. My concerns are primarily around possible business relationships. If you would trust the keyholders with being solely in control of 500 BTC, having this conflict will not make any difference, however if the conclusion is the person would only be safe to hold much less BTC, my concerns become more relevant. I doubt very much he's gonna just send 500 btc to a guy and not have some sort of information on the guy.
When theymos sent me the treasury funds, I had not given him any information about myself whatsoever. I keep the funds safe because I am an honest person, not out of fear that I couldn't take the BTC. Read the contract... "This is a non-legal agreement between The Bitcoin Forum ("Forum") and OgNasty ("Treasurer"). This agreement is intended to be enforced in a non-violent, non-legal way by the community." This Libertarian treasury experiment was a leap of faith by theymos, and I am not going to disappoint him. Don't just take my word for it though. Watch and see. This seems to have worked well with living treasurers, but not so much when the treasurer dies. I suspect this is in part because a treasurers heirs are not going to care about the community the same way a treasurer will, given a best case scenario, and a more common scenario is that the heirs will make a mistake and sell the treasurers computer equipment holding the private keys |
|
|
|
It would be helpful if the last x number of your posts of yours that were reported and marked "good" by a moderator was included in the ban message. This would help cut down on these pointless threads in which the person claims they did nothing wrong, only to be shown proof they plagiarized. |
|
|
|
I am filling the loan.
OP please confirm.
Yeah, Please go ahead. txid fb74ace9823dfb5083c5fbc4e56b5d07d79903ff5b0ab846676ad2f87582678a Please repay to the below address. Good luck! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I have funded the loan ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5142562.0;all) to SM23031997 via TXID fb74ace9823dfb5083c5fbc4e56b5d07d79903ff5b0ab846676ad2f87582678a Please repay according to the following address according to the following schedule: 36wD9WZri7utFL2x7Y8kMqB2piHcfqM6S2 By May 16, 2019: 0.0165 BTC OR By May 28, 2019: 0.01575 Regards QS May 13, 2019 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEPnn+llIEVKrixxxICkPizH4nZ20FAlzaKBUACgkQCkPizH4n Z20FPRAAiF5kZtEdLYR7WkolTN92J8EuRENRODlYqYAE+HTQ7XFYqguTq4LnCG77 I8uUmtIrv5kHn7nvJ0m1CbZszF8HHZcnxRE23M74YI/l3otRdiCxkKCBlhCi/hWX 86/AYUpfa6zcUakia0ytsKorJ9XUM51sOQiVyWLJBgDlidT7K8nCgEwuXzmrgE5a IwE4YyaPsk87d4aK9TXjTB20eLLTNBk6vBxit8japxrvS5vLTUGtj13xQXyEXi4z hmfg4bUf79S1aauyaW/V/qZbzVdBk3snmnGGp8HGIva29WVgd6Fx6NXNtvxzVpZ0 ZWkj8ypw3/bv6eEcy/5JXZ36LWvjyqm64yayjbkNGcVP2I3FFkhS+4q3fHjG8g7E jUfjaxBc/DeVlGq60hegKrqosvggMQHfa7OFtxHX9Yz2LiD2svxUwV9uTG6vYgDY b5qqTgmcT8Tgbhy60qCA9KrrC2RDc85y11qK11sXVlk4H1qz782Ovv1UV7Xr5CXh TGHO1Z5q/OVe2u0+GULh9bqFQrP5iX4V5Kq3h/36Hhfvrn+VLacBQNJrknfVNstD Q8GFJ24CS3ISLAaVhPBRj9gVyc3L0UqO4cGfimXzvrAaVlZSZChyNHP32VN6XJPO IpTQMuN7RFIVcYyzRIOcbgzKMubBMldxPsdW5rRamuMk9SLqW2M= =L2lX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
|
I am filling the loan.
OP please confirm.
|
|
|
|
Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools.
Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting.
I dont really think that is the case. How many shootings end up with the shooter killed by the police or themselves at the end of it? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine a lot of people that plan attacks, don't intend on escaping alive. You don't see the same patterns as with armed burglary where the attacker gets in, does what they came to do, and quickly leaves before police arrive. People go in and stay until they are surrounded by police. I also don't believe that attacks are more frequently perpetrated on gun free zones because attackers are concerned for their own safety. Its just a guaranteed way to get on the news. If you are a suicidal psychopath, being on national news for a final hurrah might be appealing. The cycle will continue until we stop giving these people the attention they crave. Of course that won't happen though. [...] Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try. |
|
|
|
I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.
BTC500 to be held by one single person? Definitely not. Not anyone. I think those funds are at risk. 7 people for a 4-of-7 multisig address so 4 signatures are required? Absolutely yes. Much less trust is required in that case. First of all, this is ultimately theymos' money, legally speaking, so the decision starts and ends with him. In order for it to be a good idea to allow someone to hold 500 BTC of your money, you need to be confident they can be trusted holding said money. This is very straightforward as all you need to ask yourself if the person can be trusted with said amount of money. OgN has shown himself to be able to be trusted with the money -- he has not touched the money, even as its value exceeded $10 million, this is true even if you need to ask probing questions when relying on information provided by him. If someone were to be a keyholder of a 4-of-7 address, they need to be similarly trusted. They perhaps to not need to have sufficient "trust" -- that is confidence they will keep their promises when amounts involved are in the millions, not having a bunch of ratings for $200 transactions and for having "good judgment" -- to hold 500 BTC, but need enough trust to hold very substantial amounts of others' money. If you were to rely on the fact that two "people" are truly separate people, you will have difficulty verifying this information. First you need to verify they are two distinct people, but this is difficult because locations can easily be faked. Next you need to evaluate if the various keyholders have existing business or personal relationships that might conflict with the assumption the keyholders will not collude to steal the money. Two people that run a business venture together are going to be similar to being one person as they are likely to be loyal to eachother, and their financial success not only depends on the others' reputation, but also their financial situations are likely to be similar and will depend on how successful their venture is. The same is true if two people later form a venture after becoming a stakeholder. if two people have frequently traded with eachother, or are otherwise friendly, they may not disclose an (unsuccessful) attempt to collude to steal funds as a "joke" or would not otherwise report such an attempt. If there's going to be a multisig treasurer system, wouldn't it make sense to only pay the treasurers for their services after the funds have been paid back?
Is there an overview of past returns from treasurers? I know one was lost, but I don't know how the others did. I'm curious if it's been worth having treasurers over just Admin keeping the funds.
The service is to hold the money, potentially for years (as has been the case), and to maintain the private keys holding the coins. Coinbase charges 0.5% per year to hold coins similarly to how the treasurers are holding funds. Gemini charges 0.4%/year. OgN's payment is probably a bit on the high side, but both he and theymos are free to negotiate a price they wish. |
|
|
|
|
I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.
|
|
|
|
It looks like Vod might be trying to pull a “Michael Avenatti”
Ok. Contact me through legal means. I'll give your lawyer my info - the IRS will have it too.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen threads in which the banned user says they emailed the appeal email address and didn’t receive any response. This makes me believe appeals are ignored when they will not be granted.
Perhaps a better solution would be to give a response that the appeal has not been granted at this time when this is the case.
|
|
|
|
I support a temp ban in ~all cases in which only a small amount of plagiarism is involved AND it happened a long time ago. Plagiarism is undoubtedly both very wrong, and a major problem within the forum, but I don't see the benefit of removing someone who only did damage (plagiarized) years ago, especially if they are now otherwise being a member who is contributing to the forum. No you don’t. You relentlessly went after me when I was trying to come back to the forum as well as when others fighting for me did the same after plagiarizing a couple post during one days time. Your plagiarized posts were not from a long time ago when you were banned, giving you no time to have changed your ways, nor to otherwise contribute to the forum. Further: I'm unaware of what I did wrong.
which does not give me confidence you would not do something similarly harmful to the forum given the opportunity. There was also a high profile fight against plagiarism at the time, and it was well publicized that plagiarism was not acceptable around here. |
|
|
|
The jealousy I’ve encountered for holding that position alone has been so toxic, I would welcome others joining me in that responsibility at this point. It would feel like a target has been taken off my back.
I don't think it is jealousy. I think some people believe you are willing to take money off the top when you are holding money for others, because that is exactly what they do, and they want part of that action. When it was well known I was holding a large amount of money on behalf of someone else, I received extortion threats asking for the exact amount I was holding, even though it had been well known I personally owed an even larger number of coins at the time. It is my belief that these people believe you will be willing to part ways with money you are holding for other people and the "jealousy" you are seeing is actually a setup for an extortion attempt, if you have not already received extortion threats for the amount of money you are holding. The people who are saying that Theymos should switch to multi sig are secretly trying to extort the forum funds from OG? Please explain how that would work when multiple people need to sign the signature. You are twisting my words. OgN currently holds the only key to the 500 BTC he is holding for the forum, and there have not been any serious calls for forum funds to be held in a multisig address. What is being said about OgN is not unlike what was said about zeroaxl before he was extorted. The primary difference is that zeroaxl was privately accused of a bunch of BS, while OgN is being publicly accused of the same. |
|
|
|
My children will spend what 14-20 years in educational institutions, and can go there day after day without ever fearing for their motherfucking lives.
Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools. Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
