Perhaps next time you will give yourself extra time to repay any loan you try to take out.

Based on my review of theymos' comments on the matter, this is actually the preferred behavior, even if you assume the person deserves a lesser amount of merit.

If the person has shown they are deserving to rank up, theymos has explicitly said to give the maximum amount of merit to allow them to rank up.

If you award too much merit, then there will be no real damage

The post in question was deleted since bpip was created in mid 2018, well after Satoshi, Sirus and Gavin stopped participating in the management, administration and moderation of the forum.

If you see any additional posts by theymos that break the rules, I would suggest you press the "report to moderator" button, and indicate the person writing the post already has one strike against them, and that the person deserves both a ban and the maximum negative trust possible 

I don't think allowing US residents withdrawing BTC or fiat makes them a money transmitter.

The banning of US persons was most likely related to margin trading, margin lending, and a subset of listed coins potentially being classified as "securities" by the SEC.

The CFTC looked into their business practices in 2014/2015, and fined them based on their margin trading practices. Presumably, if there were concerns about their "money transmission" practices, the CFTC or another regulator would have stepped in.

I would put you in the category of someone who cannot handle any type of criticism, nor can handle being under the spotlight, even marginally. Perhaps you should be willing to be investigated before you go around judging people based on flimsy evidence.




Perhaps you could quote one person who left trust in the link you cited who is claimed I I have stolen or attempted to steal from anyone. Hint: it doesn't exist. Protip - you should retract your statement as it is defamatory and untrue.


You said both "I feel confident suggesting that you have a gambling addiction" and "Please, seek help"....not ~please be evaluated...~ or ~please see your doctor~....I cannot see any way this could possibly be anything but a diagnosis. 

---

I have stated above that I will not do this (multiple times), and that my being a merit source is not necessary for me to do this because of my ability to create good posts.....

Ahhh, so it was because he is unable to edit his post in that thread.

There are a lot of forum accounts for sale in auctions that aren’t actually auctions.

Anyway this is very far from plagiarism.

It is weird that he didn’t just edit his post. I am curious if he can edit his post, or if he just didn’t think to do so.

Well Assange did make many within "the state" look very bad, and he did make many who are in power within the state over the years look bad, so it should be no surprise that Assange is very much disliked in Washington. 

If your thread is content heavy, you can have an advertisement in your thread with prior permission from theymos.

At one point, dogie was advertising in his various miner guides threads, and mitchell was advertising in his overview of signature campaigns thread. I presume theymos gave prior permission for both of these.

I have no idea if Daboy_Lyle received prior permission for his thread. I personally think there should be a little more content/information in his thread before being allowed to advertise, and I see the thread to be somewhat low effort.

His logic was flawed, and was not based on any kind of science.

Further, since all of the information used to make the determination is public, it would be trivial for someone to impersonate someone they are trying to make look bad.

I would encourage anyone who questions the value of being a higher ranking account to review this thread.

At the very least, this shows a hidden bias. I personally try to remove as much of that bias from the merit I send by soliciting people to make submissions to me of examples of high effort posts, made over a period of time, although I do make some exceptions to this, for example, if one person gives an accurate answer after many people have posted nonsense (so to highlight the accurate answer).

The above also gives the maximum benefit of the doubt to merit sources, that I don't think is necessarily appropriate to give all of them. For example, I have seen at least one merit source make subtle efforts to get rid of certain forum members they do not like, or get along with -- if you accept my conclusions of this at least one person's behavior to be "trying to get rid" of the person, then it would probably not be unreasonable to say they also make an effort to de-facto censor those who they do not agree with. 

I think I already accurately predicted the rationale for your asking the question:



I don't particularly like the mass newbies complaining, but I would suggest reading the content of what they are saying, instead of looking at who is making the statement. I find the use of mass newbies manipulative, but I also suspect the OP either fears for his "main" accounts reputation, or that he will be the subject of ad-hominem attacks (and his arguments will be ignored), or more likely, both.

None of this will get implemented.

Theymos will almost certainly not say this until Jan 2021, but the current system is in place in order to avoid libel liability via immunity given in section 230 of the communications decency act, because trust system ratings under previous implementations did not (IMO) grant him this immunity in regards to trust ratings displayed, and the warning not to trade with someone because theymos effectively chose (directly or otherwise) whose ratings would show up by default.

Previously, even though theymos likely did not have section 230 immunity from libel, nearly all of the negative ratings had qualified privilege against liability for libel because they would serve as a warning to others against potential harm, however in recent years, this no longer was the case, and some of the people who are most active in handing out ratings, no longer reasonably are giving out ratings as a tool to warn others.

I don't think the current implementation would result in theymos receiving section 230 immunity if he was sued for libel because he still hand picks the merit sources, who ultimately get to choose who gets to "vote" on who is in DT1 -- the current system is just a roundabout way for theymos to choose who is on DT1, IMO. It would not be a slam dunk case, but I don't think theymos would ultimately prevail.

All of the suggestions in the OP will ultimately result in theymos handpicking who is on the various implementations of DT, and would only create additional risk to him.

I don't see how this is of any relevance to what the OP is saying. Especially considering that based on the rest of your post, you already have a preconceived answer, and will either call him a liar (and not credible) if he denies having another account, or will call him a sockpuppet (and again, not credible) if he says he does have another account.

Thats a negative ghost rider.

He takes this thread seriously and ignores all evidence in your favor.

---

---

I don't agree with what he was saying, but I don't think his concerns about the merited post were frivolous. Based on your post, it doesn't sound like you take even minor criticism very kindly.

You have negative trust from Lauda. I would not expect for your concerns to be taken seriously.

Your best course of action is to create a new account and hide any connections to the account you are currently using.

It looks like they even released the email addresses of their donors https://file.wikileaks.org/file/wikileaks-leaks-donors.txt

Edit: they may have Clinton’s emails lol. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/
Edit2: it looks like this may not actually be new, and may be from early 2016 - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

I looked through some files published on file.wikileaks.org and it looks like most of the files are mundane, nothing stands out as being potential bombshells, and a lot is really old, decades old. Also according to a tweet from Wikileaks, nothing on file.wikileaks.org is new.

Didn’t read most of your post, however your posts were previously deleted because you were posting in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread you posted in.

You can post in the freebitco.in thread, if one exists, or you can create a new thread about your complaint.

If this is true, IMO there is no need to give merit to multiple posts of his just for the sale of giving a small number of merit for each post. qwk might as well review his post history and if he believes lafu is deserving to rank up, he should find one post and give it 50 (or however many) merit.

The OP is trying to do exactly that and is being mocked as a person asking illegitimate questions and has 3 ratings from DT for doing exactly as you describe (I am also pretty sure he has them before you wrote your comment).