Spot on, and I'd suggest that if 16xypjnxlrew hasn't visited the altcoin section he ought to do so if he wants about 10k threads comparing shitcoins to bitcoin and shitcoins to each other.  They're all just spider webs for shitposters, but you'll have to see it to believe it.

And OP, I don't think bitcoin is going to go away anytime soon.  Like NeuroticFish said, a lot of altcoins probably won't make it.  Most of the new ones are just copies of other coins or don't offer anything in the way of innovation, and on top of all that there are thousands of coins  available--and more being created all the time--with only a finite amount of money, there's no way most of them are going to maintain any sort of value.

I've noticed that there's a trend in altcoins, where there are foundations behind the coin and they basically control the marketing and whatnot.  It's definitely a trend in PoS coins, and that's concerning to me because it increases the centralization of power for a given coin.  By contrast, bitcoin doesn't have any sort of leadership.  If Satoshi had stuck around, who knows what bitcoin would be like right now?  Look at ETH and the whole mess with them moving to PoS, which is going to affect all the miners and the price, etc.  If a coin's creator is still developing it, bad things can happen.

Have some faith.  The market sucks right now, but just look at bitcoin's entire price chart and you'll see it's had some wild swings in the past and periods when the price was flat.  It won't stay stagnant forever.

Yep, I agree.  The general attitude most bitcoiners have (or should have IMO) is that a service like this should be considered untrustworthy until proven otherwise, especially with the claims Shaker_finance has made and also how he made them.  Insulting critics/skeptics in the scam-filled world of crypto isn't the right way to go about convincing people you're legit.

As far as the claim that people are only posting criticism because they're in a sig campaign is wrong, for one.  Those members could just as easily post idiotic praise instead of thoughtfully picking this mixer apart.  It's also hypocritical if Shaker_finance also has a campaign running to promote his own service (as mentioned by OP; I haven't looked in the Services section). 

I don't know if Shaker_finance is brand new to the forum or not, but it seems like he is, as anyone who's been here would expect to be challenged after making all of those claims.  And to him I say it's nothing personal, because he's obviously taking it that way.  It would be far better to answer the skeptics with data than defensiveness.

I hear what you're saying, but I'd suggest Ratimov should feel free to do whatever he likes--there are a lot of merit sources, and each of them is different with respect to their standards, how many merits they give out on average, and other variables as well.  Plus, I've noticed that it might be just a wee bit harder for members to rank up than it needs to be.  I've seen some really good posters who've been stuck at Sr. Member/Hero for well over a year, and in cases like that bumping up the number of merits sent per post makes sense.  I would also say that posts that just barely qualify for some merits shouldn't be granted any additional ones, because the award for mediocrity should never be increased.

No, you can't.  I'd say an average member can move up from Jr. Member pretty quickly if they're a decent writer or contribute stuff that's significant, but once a member reaches Full Member rank, it starts taking a much longer time to reach the next rank (assuming their posts aren't prolific and well above average).  Bumping up the number of merits sent per post even by 2 probably wouldn't have much of an effect if a handful of merit sources did it, which they probably won't.

Thank you.  And with that, I think this thread has played itself out and I'm now going to lock it up for good and for all.

Thanks to everyone who contributed--I'm glad you all did, and I'm glad I got to distribute a bunch of merits.  And take note: the posts I merited are the type I usually look for as a merit source.  Aside from that, I got a good lesson in global geography and a little bit of economics as well.  Prop to you all!

Nothing's ever guaranteed, not in life, not on the forum, and especially not when it comes to signature campaigns.  There have been ones that were supposed to run for months that lasted a week and lousy ones (like Yobit) that you wouldn't think would survive a week but that ended up running for years.  I'm under no delusions that sig campaign earnings are a viable way to sustain oneself, but it is interesting to think about, isn't it?

Somebody please insert that Nicholas Cage "You don't say" meme in here for me, will ya?

LOL.  I'm sure it's none of those people in the pics.  Probably jerkwad with bare feet and crumbs all over his keyboard somewhere in S. America or Asia or wherever else English comes as a problem to retarded scammers who are too careless to get the details of their scam right.

If I knew nothing else about this service except those three team member photos, I'd immediately suspect a scam.  Those three people look like what far left-leaning Hollywood would cast in a movie that only had three actors.  Got a professorial-looking older white male, a black male who looks like he jumped out of an Abercromie & Fitch catalog, and a young white female who, quite frankly, looks horny.

Definitely not what I'd picture as a crypto recovery team.

Looks like a gonorrhea-infected vagina, whaddya want?  Everyone's got their own taste, and I looked at that thread and didn't see anything that evoked strong feelings in me one way or another.  Besides, it's a thread that's probably going to die a quick death unless the OP keeps bumping it.

Man, I'm totally at a loss to explain why OP feels the way he does about that symbol.  Maybe it's a personal psychological thing.

Awesome, I hadn't noticed that in the god-awful Netflix display page of their movies and TV series, and I appreciate you taking the time to mention it.  I just found it and am going to watch it, probably after this post.

I'm not familiar with loan apps, but based on what I know about hard money lenders, payday lenders, and the like I'm sure OP's friend got ripped off somehow.  Those services are basically the worst form of usury, and they really should be illegal in the US.  I'm not even sure how they're regulated, but even if they are they're profiting from desperate people and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  They're worse than drug dealers.

Everyone should do that, but you and I both know what the reality is.  I don't know about other countries, but in the states everyone has a credit card, and a lot of them are maxed out.  People buy homes that they're slaves to based on their mortgage rates and cars they have to finance, etc., etc.  The rule that I've stuck to for the last 20 years is if I can't buy it with cash, I don't buy it.  Saves me a lot of headaches.

I'm surprised to see both of you in this thread!  I've been quietly interested in BTX for a while now but never really visit the altcoin section, and I don't think I've read anything in this thread yet.

Are there any masternodes running?  I've been using BTX Electrum thus far but just downloaded the core wallet.  When I click on the masternodes tab, I don't see anything.  My wallet hasn't completely synced yet, but wouldn't think that would matter.

And yeah, a lot of coins like BTX are dead or dying--and that's what I've been predicting for years.  BTX would be an excellent coin for spending, but unfortunately so would hundreds of other coins.  The market is just too saturated, and BTX doesn't seem to offer much in the way of innovation (or active development for that matter).

Not sure if you're referring to Munger here, but if so he's definitely not been a victim of the US government or of the traditional banking system.  In any case, he's entitled to his opinion of bitcoin--and he probably wouldn't keep giving it if he wasn't being asked for it by the media.  And believe me, the media knows what his and Buffett's thoughts on crypto are and are just trying to drum up some harsh criticism of it at the behest of whoever their overlords are.

Hell, I read an article in the MIT Technology Review recently entitled Crypto's confusing consumer promises (it's in print, so I can't quote excerpts easily enough), and I was baffled as to how they'd allow such inaccurate claims as bitcoin can't be used to buy things and so on to be published, but they're in that article.  The media loves to call things a scam--and sometimes they're quite right--because it makes for a juicier story than heaping praise on something.

In any case, Munger isn't an idiot and is right to be a skeptic of bitcoin.  We all should question something with the seductive power it has, but I do think he's being overly harsh on it.  Buffett probably would be (and actually has been) a little bit more diplomatic with his language regarding it.  Lol.

Uh huh.  This looks like a few other threads I've seen about merit created by members who've been here long enough to know what the system is and how it works.  In fact, I remember posting something in the last of such threads that kind of applies to this one (except the post history check, which I haven't done in OP's case):


Take note of my suggestion of increasing your post count, OP.  It's really hard to earn merits when you've only made 24 posts in 16 months.


Oh, then there's that.

I'm not so sure I agree with that.  First of all, Google is a shit search engine and has evolved into nothing more than a vehicle to sell stuff to you based on their algorithms--but I don't like the idea of a search engine acting as a gatekeeper, filtering out things they think people shouldn't see (though I'm pretty sure that's what they're already doing on a massive scale). 

And the fact that some shady crypto casino comes up in their search results isn't ever going to bring down a company with as much power as Google.  That's just never going to happen.

As an aside, the same argument could be made about bitcointalk and what it allows here.  Scams aren't moderated, you know. 

So true.  Their motto was (or still is) "Don't be Evil", but my oh my how that company got corrupted by the cash that started rolling in, and the power they accumulated over time by making their way into everyone's life somehow.  I don't think anything short of a major scandal or people taking of the blinders is going to lessen their influence.  One can only hope.

Definitely easier, and I'd bet the mods don't get those kinds of requests that often.

I noticed the anonymous accounts last time I was reading through posts from 2010-11 (and I'd strongly advise anyone who hasn't browsed posts from the early days of the forum to do so--it's really interesting) but never thought anything of it.  You guys taught me something today!  Not that I'm super knowledgeable about bitcointalk machinations anyway, lol.  I've been an active member for years, and I still don't know how to do some of the basic stuff.

Spam would increase exponentially, I could almost guarantee it.  I haven't seen any of those bots shilling testosterone or some weird product/service lately, but they were around a couple of years ago and probably still would be if that captcha hadn't been addded.  I'm not sure if that's the reason why you can't just post here anonymously anymore, but I can't imagine allowing that anymore.

Ha ha....I didn't offer up any help since I don't use Binance, but the community here really is great for issues like yours.  I'm also glad you got a good outcome in the end, though when I read your first post I didn't suspect that there was anything untoward going on at Binance.  It's true you shouldn't keep your crypto on a centralized exchange for the long term, but if you were going to pick any exchange to do that with, Binance would probably be first on most people's list.

Ugh.  When is the speed of money transfer settlement going to go to zero?  This reminds me of the old days when businesses wouldn't ship something until your check cleared, which was usually 7 days.  It always amazes me that in 2022 it takes days for even things like stock trades to settle, or eBay payments to make it from the buyer to the seller's bank account.  Anyway, I'm hoping tech catches up to the financial system's needs or vice versa.

Jeeeesus H Christ, have you ever worked a typical 9-5 job before?  Maybe where you live it's all fun and games, but while I've certainly had some enjoyment out of work I would prefer not to have to 1) have a boss, and 2) have to work with people I can't stand.  When you start working a job, you never really know what the work culture is going to be like or if there are crouching saints, hidden cocksucker coworkers until you've already committed to it.  At that point, you just have to suck it up or quit and neither option is ideal.

I'm getting the feeling that a lot of members aren't understanding my scenario here.  Supporting a family was never mentioned, and I wouldn't have anyone as a housemate if they had to bring their whole family in tow.  I'm talking about 5 people sharing a house and not having to support anyone outside (or inside) the house.  With that criterion clarified, I think it's indeed possible--and a lot of people have said as much already.

Again, ain't talkin' about no family up in this mix.  This thread is about my particular fantasy, and I'm looking for feedback as far as places where the cost of living is low, the weather is decent, and I'm not going to be raped to death in the middle of the street in broad daylight when I go out for a smoke.

Oh, but it is.  It really is.

Me, I'd start handing out bright red MBTCTBA hats and play a snazzy tune as my anthem, probably as one of those midi files or whatever they were in the late 90s/early 2000s that were embedded in websites and had to be manually turned off. 

Then I'd get to work snuffing out the shitposters and bring back the Old Scammer Tag system and probably newbie jail too.

In other words, you wouldn't want me as the boss of this forum.  And I have to say, after thinking about the question for a while I give a lot of credit to Theymos for not micromanaging the forum--I don't know what kind of guidance he gives the mods, but since everything is pretty chill around here and rules aren't exceedingly restrictive, I think he probably gives them a lot of leeway in terms of what they can do.  So props to Theymos for that.

It is a big part of bitcoin's history, but not to the outside world.  By that I mean when articles are published about the origins of bitcoin, they usually never mention bitcointalk.  I saw it mentioned in Digital Gold (great book, BTW), but even there it was simply to describe how Satoshi and the early bitcoiners communicated.  The 10,000BTC pizza thread was mentioned as well.

As far as the wallet idea goes, if it were a web wallet I wouldn't offer it.  But if it was a downloadable wallet that was just a bitcointalk-branded one, I think that would be a neat idea.  There are so many bitcoin wallets out there already, though.  On the other hand if I was the boss man, I might be inclined to use some of that donation money in the treasury to create something like that.  I certainly would hire a team of coders and fix a ton of fucking issues that members keep bringing up and which die faster than a dime store goldfish.

At first glance I thought this might be some random jackass trying to get revenge on bL4nkcode by posting an account sales thread, thinking bL4nkcode's account would get tagged, but then I pulled up his profile and was reminded of his involvement in that charity thing (which never was resolved if I'm not mistaken).  I'd forgotten all about that.  It might actually be bL4nkcode trying to get some sucker to buy his ruined account, since he probably has no intention of ever being active here again.

And yeah, it isn't going to do any good to tag the account that started the sales thread, since it's probably carrying out the only purpose it was created for.

OP, thanks for alerting the community of this.  I'm not tagging anyone, but if there was some evidence of an established member selling an account or a known account up for sale, I would definitely do so.  And thanks for refreshing my memory of that misuse of charity money thing.  Anyone got any info on that, as in updates?

You've been here since 2017, so you've got to remember what it was like before the merit system, right?  I mean I was so frustrated by all the idiotic nonsense being posted that I started handing out negative trust to chronic shitposters when I got on DT2, because that was the only tool available to combat them.  There were people farming accounts like crazy in order to enroll them in bounties, because all it took was time and activity.  That crap even continued for a few months at least after the merit system started, because I caught a whole bunch of alts (or a bounty farm) in April 2018.  And I'd seen similar stuff like that many times prior to me creating that thread.

So yeah, it's supposed to be hard to earn merits and rank up.  I've said that a million times since 2018, and I'm sticking to it.

I guess I can only speak for myself, but I've been a member of other discussion forums in the past, and I was never the least bit concerned about what my rank was.  I suspect that the reason it's extremely important on bitcointalk is because the higher your rank, the more signature space you have available to rent out--and I think a lot of people would agree with that.  There's an obsession with earning merits that goes way past any rational desire to contribute positively to the community, and that leads me to believe that my suspicions are correct. 

And why do people buy high-ranking accounts?  Is that because they want to contribute to bitcointalk?  Didn't think so.

It seems like I just browse the forum in a different way.  If others visit certain sections they like instead of always checking unread posts, I'm guessing they're not visiting every section on the forum.  My way seems more efficient; I know the sections I like to browse, so I just ignore all the others and simply check in on all the new posts made in all of those sections I haven't ignored. 

I bet if you checked which sections I've given merits in, it'd be pretty broad.  I'm not sure how to look for that data, else I would have posted it here.  Most of my sent merits have probably been in Meta, Reputation, and Economics, but I do post history reviews for members on request, and so I often travel outside my ignore zone to hand out merits.  Keep that in mind whilst you're judging me, eh?

You'd sort what?  And why would you only do it if you were a merit source?  As far as burning things down, when it comes to sections like Bitcoin Discussion that's the only thing I can do, because that's where the shitposters live.  B&H I'm not so sure about as I haven't visited it in a while, but remember: I'm just one merit source out of many.  I've got my preferences just like any other source, and in my defense I do take my "job" seriously and have handed out a lot of merits since I became a source.

Yeah, but I wonder how many of those people were newcomers to crypto and got soured on it entirely after losing their funds.  I tend to think that the more dedicated crypto enthusiasts wouldn't entrust an exchange or defi platform or whatever with their coins, especially if it's a large amount. 

I don't think I looked at the infograms closely last time I checked this thread, so I just noticed that most of the hacks targeted US companies.  I don't know why that is, but I could probably hazard a number of guesses.  Also, it looks like though the number of hacks increased, the failure rate of the target company has decreased--so that's good.  Looks like these companies are becoming sufficiently capitalized such that they can withstand a decent-sized hit from a hacker.

Hate to tell you all, but all of those things have been true since the beginning of the newspaper industry (and likely before that, too).  Some young people might just be figuring that out now, but a lot of people have known that for a long time. 

However, right now the world is more divided along political and social lines than it has been since probably the 1960s, and those polls only show numbers going back to 1993/97.  Things haven't been as bad as they are now at any point in that time period.  And the divisiveness I mentioned really ramped up when Trump was running for president as far as I can tell.  His presidency polarized and hardened people's opinions about a lot of issues, and even now, after he's out of office everyone is still on edge. 

The pandemic didn't help either, especially with the controlled access to information about vaccines and whatnot by the government and the media.  People saw very clearly how the news (and social media, too) was controlled by the so-called powers that be.  I didn't take part in that poll, but if I had, they could have added another data point against the trust in media of all kinds.