79.

Cheers :)s-<

The former option prevents spam of the Services thread, because the latter would have more overlap (i.e. users repeatedly apply in each slot opening vs. in one mass opening). However, by opening up frequently, you are able to judge people's post quality as they develop and the circumstances between members can change.

It's a balance between favoring recruitment variety vs. favoring sanctity of the thread. I think the choice is obvious.

Trading is a zero-sum game.

If your bot guarantees to profit, then someone is guaranteed to lose.
If everyone uses the bot, then everyone is guaranteed profit, then everyone is guaranteed losses.

Wait.

All accounts that have ticked the 'stay logged in' button will be logged-in until one of the sessions decides to click the "log out" button, to which all active sessions are logged out.

Signature campaigns with fixed post requirements make no sense and are detrimental to the manager, to the participants, and to the service that is being advertised.

---

1) it produces spam.
2) in the case where the manager is strict in regards to post quality, the user's payment is at-risk even if they are a few quality posts below the requirement
3) the pay/post model can be adjusted in order to reward higher-quality posts and as such limit the number of accepted spam posts, reducing the overall cost of the campaign
4) a manager will have to read through at least X posts for each N people whereas a pay/post (with cap) is variable and will strike X*N good posts at most

The linguistic masturbation of adding [ROASTING] to your title only shows how bloated your ego is. Come on.

I was a fan of 577345 and 07734

Learn?

Math really needs an overhaul in the education system. I hate the current 'memorize procedure and repeat' protocol without any care for the concepts. It skews people away from a fascinating subject which deserves much, much more love than it has these days.

---

Maybe thermos had implemented another 'leet' event... when you get 1337 trust

Well, you certainly haven't shown any evidence of you being an "online casino claims enforcement expert" yet.

Pragmatically, you are as much of an "online casino claims enforcement expert" as I am.

---

You do not know this and are stating an opinion.

It is your opinion that my opinion is not worth 5 cents.

This may or may not be true, but the answer to the question "is my opinion worth 5 cents" depends more on what my opinion is, what the topic is about, and what the value of 5 cents is.

1 @ 0.027
2 @ 0.012

Your point against 1) is more about semantics.

What I mean about "good at catching scammers" is merely: they have shown themselves to have ousted many cryptographic identities. Whatever is actually happening is not relevant to my point since we can't be sure about anything digital. Of course.

2) is in relation to the space of all people who have not posted about scammers. Consider the average ICO bounty participant vs. the average scambuster if you want a clearer example.

---

At the end of the day, the two points were made purely to illustrate how little scambusting proves... so we're on the same page, more or less.

Ah, just in time for the new forum to be released.

And there it is. The ever-expected excuse.

It is pretty easy to come up with a couple dozen reasons as to why you can't provide some information: you want to imply, "the onus is on the accuser," but of course when we look at the bigger picture, what we see is that someone is claiming you helped them... without any evidence.

This means that pragmatically, we know not whether the user in question is you, me, or anyone that actually was helped by you.

---

You might say that this is similar to the scam accusation, but the issue is that by ignoring a scam accusation rather than positive feedback you are merely showing a selective bias against any dissent. This leads me to assume that despite any scam accusations that have come out, are coming out, or will come out, you will refuse to answer them regardless of validity.

That, in my opinion, is not behavior indicative of a professional service.

I do think that TEC has a point in regards to the perceived trust of someone that catches scammers.

The issue with applying so much value on those that seek them out is that you almost have a single point of failure. Consider, if you will, what you learn from someone who has caught many scammers in their forum lifetime.

You know:

1) they are good at catching scammers.
2) they are more likely to have better character than someone who does not catch scammers

---

Neither of these points would aptly make you think, "this is someone I ought to trade with, without using escrow."

If trust scores are of any value to you, then I expect you to send a significant amount of bitcoins to one of the top 10 "most trusted" users and then ask for it back.

As for me, I have only used escrow once over the past year... not because I used the trust system on-forum, but because I used my personal trust system: logic. Just don't put so much emphasis on trust.

Shame on you, Foxpup!

Of course the victim can't give out any personal details... that would be obviously compromising their information, and we can't have that.

---

(there's always an excuse)

Natural and composed knowledge brings forth an ease of communication, to which a user can respond to topics with a much higher relative speed than most other users.

I find that I enter a state of 'flow' when it comes to posts, in that I will often see a variety of topics that interest me and post replies to them all in (somewhat) quick succession. I would only truly consider egregious post bursting a significant offence, that is: posting generic or vague remarks that do not add anything to the discussion. This includes regurgitated replies, since repeating an already-stated comment doesn't contribute to anything.

orange man bad? orange man bad.

Funding such a piece is akin to inserting gold into your flesh.

Either you lose monetary value or you lose physical value.

You know why bounties are "worse"?

Because you're working for worthless tokens with some supposed 'value' in terms of ICO price.

Maybe 1/10 times, you luck out and it actually turns out to be something more than a few dollars for your efforts. Unfortunately, do bounty hunters really care enough to selectively choose their campaigns? Maybe when they aren't one of the multi-accounting bounty spammers. After all, one of them has to eventually end up as something worthwhile, right?

---

You are doing this to yourselves. However, when the 90% of campaigns that don't properly pay out end, all that remains are your spam posts littered all across the forum.

Briefly skimmed through the thread. Regardless of your opinion of Tech's Hare, you should be changing the title to something that more closely connects with the accusation.

---

As for the topic itself, one should be conscious of the users on their trust list and make adjustments as they are pointed out. And conversely, we should bear in mind that some users are not as active in the reformation of their trust lists as others (e.g. phillipma had to update their list apropos to a concern with their list)