The national enquirer is for sale, it would be funny if Bezo's bought it and turned it into an anti trump rag instead of the pro trump rag it is now! He could buy it cheap as it is probably not going to fetch much on the open market, while the feds are up AMI's ass for extorting Bezo's and breaking their non prosecution agreement with the SDNY!
RIP National Enquirer, you won't be missed!
Bezos already has a anti-trump newsletter, it’s called The Washington Post. I don’t think the DOJ will actually prosecute AMI, and if they do they will probably lose (hence why they won’t even try). The terms of the deferred prosecution agreement was they could be prosecuted with the original crime of declining to report information negative to Trump during the election, if they don’t break the law in the next x years, and if they do they can be prosecuted. The purpose of the agreement was to make Trump look bad and to imply the law was broken. If AMI is prosecuted and wins in court, this narrative goes away. |
|
|
|
If he is an intelligence asset, it is not one friendly to the United States, or its allies in the West. I would find it fairly unlikely he is an intelligence asset though. His releasing the DNC emails arguably helped Trump get elected (at least marginally), and Clinton would have been far friendlier to US enemies. I generally do not believe he is an intelligence asset. IIRC, Clinton had talked about possibly assassinate Assange, but I believe this may have been prior to him moving into the Ecuador Embassy. IMO trump should pardon him. He is likely to face politically motivated charges in the US related to the 2016 election.
I don't know why after this years of giving him asylum, the Ecuadorian government finally gave in to the demands of the West and it's politically motivated.
A new president was elected, and he did not want his government to have to deal with Assange.
Snowden tweeted the arrest was in relation to a US warrant and extradition request from 2017 in relation to work with Bradley Manning. Even though I'd want Trump to go ahead and pardon Assange, I highly doubt that he's going to be able to pardon him without a good amount of fighting from the left and right on the topic of national intelligence. Though I do think that WikiLeaks is going to get a large number of donations from this, and there's going to be a movement in some circles to have him pardoned. I'd put the odds on 80-20 on him being pardoned. He's not a US citizen though right? I don't know why he would be subject to US rules simply because he exposed them. I think he should be pardoned immediately, but it might be more likely he will be pardoned after Trump either looses his 2020 re-election or after the election in 2024. He also might pardon him after the 2020 election that he wins. The US government imposes its jurisdiction over everyone in the world everywhere in the world. However the majority of the time it will not enforce its laws for crimes done outside of the US that didn’t affect anyone in the US. |
|
|
|
Lauda has marlboroza on his trust list. Also, as of Feb 12, marlboroza had many people on his trust list. So? This conflicts with the insulation that he does not want to be on DT1, nor DT2 anymore. I think you misinterpreted the date: Feb 12, I made some improvements to my Trust list viewer, and updated week 4. However, the data dump I used was from Saturday morning before that (Feb 9). Marlboroza created his topic on Feb 12: Add this to your trust list:
~marlboroza I have no reason to believe marlboroza had not emptied his trust list yet, when he created that topic. I didn’t compare the date of the trust list to the date of his thread. There is a post not long after the thread was opened that shows he has an empty trust list. I would presume he cleared his trust list prior to opening the thread or very shortly thereafter. I was trying to point out that he previously had a trust list before he was blacklisted. This conflicts with the insulation that he does not want to be on DT1, nor DT2 anymore. Except his trust list was wiped at most 3 hours after starting the thread asking to be excluded: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49699653#msg49699653. It was probably wiped before that though, since Loyce's data would have been 3 days old by that point. I agree, no questions regarding suspicious activity should be allowed to be asked of him. /s How is asking to be removed from DT suspicious? If he was asking to be added to DT, you may have a point. So you are telling me you think it is completely normal behavior for someone to *ask* to be removed from everyone's trust list, and continue sending trust ratings? These two activities conflict with eachother; there is no argument against this. Because he could be sending ratings for his own benefit, or he is perfectly happy for his ratings to appear as untrusted to everyone else, you know, just the same as the thousands of forum members who leave ratings but aren't on DT or anyone else's trust list. The suspicious part is that his actions don’t match what he is saying. He is very much aware that his ratings show up by default but he continues to leave ratings despite saying that he doesn’t want them showing up by default. When I first saw the thread, I didn’t think his request was genuine, but I wasn’t sure why he was making the request. |
|
|
|
Lauda has marlboroza on his trust list. Also, as of Feb 12, marlboroza had many people on his trust list. So? This conflicts with the insulation that he does not want to be on DT1, nor DT2 anymore. I would point out that marlboroza says he asked to be blacklisted from DT1, he has not given any details regarding the circumstances as to why he asked to be blacklisted He was blacklisted. He disappeared from DT1 on the same day he made the original thread, and not when DT1 was next recalculated 3 weeks later. Therefore, theymos must have manually removed him. There is no question that he was blacklisted. The question surrounds the circumstances surrounding him getting blacklisted. He is also not required, in any way shape or form, to explain his decision to anyone. I agree, no questions regarding suspicious activity should be allowed to be asked of him. /s and he still leaves trust sometimes. Not wanting to be part of DT has nothing to do with leaving trust ratings, otherwise no one except DT members would ever leave trust ratings. Right  So you are telling me you think it is completely normal behavior for someone to *ask* to be removed from everyone's trust list, and continue sending trust ratings? These two activities conflict with eachother; there is no argument against this. |
|
|
|
If he is an intelligence asset, it is not one friendly to the United States, or its allies in the West. I would find it fairly unlikely he is an intelligence asset though. His releasing the DNC emails arguably helped Trump get elected (at least marginally), and Clinton would have been far friendlier to US enemies. I generally do not believe he is an intelligence asset. IIRC, Clinton had talked about possibly assassinate Assange, but I believe this may have been prior to him moving into the Ecuador Embassy. IMO trump should pardon him. He is likely to face politically motivated charges in the US related to the 2016 election.
I don't know why after this years of giving him asylum, the Ecuadorian government finally gave in to the demands of the West and it's politically motivated.
A new president was elected, and he did not want his government to have to deal with Assange.
Snowden tweeted the arrest was in relation to a US warrant and extradition request from 2017 in relation to work with Bradley Manning. |
|
|
|
Notice how almost everyone who excludes Lauda is also excluded from the default trust list? I am sure this is just a coincidence...
Ummm, obviously. It would only take approximately 30 people to exclude lauda from being in DT. Just read this explanation, and you will believe beyond a reasonable doubt, no beyond any doubt the trust system is working perfectly: All this tells me that the system is reasonably resilient to manipulation by sockpuppeting assholes. If "many people" translates into enough DT1 exclusions then Lauda will be excluded. There are ~80 members in DT1 and only 30 or so exclusions are needed to kick Lauda off. Unless you want to show proof that 50+ DT1 members are colluding it seems that you're full of shit as usual.
/s incase it was not obvious |
|
|
|
You claim to have two years experience but your forum account is not that old. You presumably didn’t start getting experience the day you created your account.
You need to address this discrepancy.
So a community manager must have a bitcointalk account? Grow up dude. No it does not, but I read your post as if you were managing campaigns here for two years. Perhaps: you to at least just let us see your portfolio.
|
|
|
|
|
You claim to have two years experience but your forum account is not that old. You presumably didn’t start getting experience the day you created your account.
You need to address this discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
Can I bump the thread once per 24 hours? Yes. Participants can also discuss the giveaway and ask questions. This needs to be legitimate conversation though |
|
|
|
|
It is normal for young children to have tendencies of the opposite gender. Children that are like this are commonly referred to as “tomboys” and “tomgirls”. These tendencies are okay and children often outgrow this. It is also not uncommon for young children to want to be like other children they are around frequently, so it would be common for a young boy who is frequently around a young girl to want to be like that girl.
Parents especially, but also those who are around a child a lot, have a lot of influence over their children and can get them to say what they want them to say.
A six year old, or a twelve year old is in absolutely no way capable of consenting to this kind of procedure. This is true even if the child is saying they strongly want the procedure.
What the mother is doing very similar to sexual abuse and is arguably more damaging to her child than sexual abuse. The mother should have her children taken away from her at an absolute minimum. A much harsher punishment is more appropriate, but I am not familiar with the relevant TX statutes.
|
|
|
|
You cannot require participants to post "proof of authentication"
As an alternative, you can have participants PM you this "proof"
But most of the bounties and airdrops require to post proof of authentication. In games and rounds, users are required to post their username too. Moreover, if I don't require them to post a proof, they will definitely cheat with other people's username. If you are giving away altcoins it is an altcoin giveaway. If you require participants to complete some nontrivial, non-low effort task, you can have participants post a report, this is what you refer to ‘proof of authentication’. I don’t think downloading a program and filling out a form meets the above criteria. You cannot give incentives for people to post low effort posts in your thread. Like I said, you can have participants send a PM to prove that they are who they say they are. |
|
|
|
can you investigate alts voting for lauda now to be fair ?
Investigations usually begin with some sort of evidence or at least a list of suspects. Do you have any? There is one person on lauda trust list that theymos blacklisted from DT1. I am not sure if his DT votes were also blacklisted and it would be difficult to test, it is possible his trust list is setup so that it won’t matter. The person claims to have requested to be blacklisted and opened a thread requesting to be removed from everyone’s trust list but there was seemingly close to zero effort put into this actually getting done. edit: He asked for everyone to not ask any questions, but he was asked a few, but he did not answer anything meaningful. marlboroza requested theymos put him on the blacklist. Also, marlborozo doesn't have a custom trust list. Quite frankly I don't know what you think you caught a whiff of.  Lauda has marlboroza on his trust list. Also, as of Feb 12, marlboroza had many people on his trust list. I would point out that marlboroza says he asked to be blacklisted from DT1, he has not given any details regarding the circumstances as to why he asked to be blacklisted, he asked to be removed from DT publicly, however he has put very little effort into getting this done (very near to zero effort), and he still leaves trust sometimes. |
|
|
|
can you investigate alts voting for lauda now to be fair ?
Investigations usually begin with some sort of evidence or at least a list of suspects. Do you have any? There is one person on lauda trust list that theymos blacklisted from DT1. I am not sure if his DT votes were also blacklisted and it would be difficult to test, it is possible his trust list is setup so that it won’t matter. The person claims to have requested to be blacklisted and opened a thread requesting to be removed from everyone’s trust list but there was seemingly close to zero effort put into this actually getting done. edit: He asked for everyone to not ask any questions, but he was asked a few, but he did not answer anything meaningful. |
|
|
|
|
You cannot require participants to post "proof of authentication"
As an alternative, you can have participants PM you this "proof"
|
|
|
|
can you investigate alts voting for lauda now to be fair ?
I think lauda has sufficient trust inclusions for him to be in DT1 under current rules. There might be one or two alts on lauda's trust list (inconclusive), and there are perhaps some more inappropriate trust list relationships between lauda and others. There are some people who also have inappropriate trust list relationships due to conflicts of interest via close business relationships, and close personal relationships, and some people seem to have popped into notoriety and into DT1 seemingly out of nowhere (and suspiciously). |
|
|
|
the person behind the thread did not come anywhere close to achieving its stated goal despite stacking the deck in its favor by using 5 alts to boost its goal.
none of them are my alts I have my doubts to the accuracy of your statement, but your denial is noted. |
|
|
|
The above practice is analogous to the government refusing to impose modest regulations on the actions of an oligopoly, which results in the oligopoly imposing many restrictions on what citizens can and cannot do, and acting unfairly in the process. It is nearly impossible to rid the oligopoly of its power, due in large part to high barriers to entry. While on the other hand, if the government were to impose modest regulations unfairly, voters could vote the government out of power.
It's not like that at all. What you're proposing would put all decisions into the hands of one individual - theymos, and that doesn't seem to be something he wants. Nor is he elected in any way so if the community doesn't like his decisions - SOL. On the other hand, the current system is based on voting and the community has a lot of influence on how DT is formed. Perhaps you'd have more success if you actually exposed the "massive regulation by a select few who are accountable to no one" using facts and not some cockamamie theories. Simple math shows that this mythical group would need more than "few" of the ~80 DT1 members to have any sort of control. I would refer you to this thread. There are many people who agree lauda should not be on DT (if you don't believe me, look at the below list of the 1st 75 people who have excluded lauda), and the person behind the thread did not come anywhere close to achieving its stated goal despite stacking the deck in its favor by using 5 alts to boost its goal. Despite being involved in an extortion scheme, and multiple other controversies, he has successfully excluded everyone that has left him negative trust. The same is true for others with high trust scores who selectively scam people. |
|
|
|
|
IMO the trust system should go back to how things worked prior to when trust exclusions were introduced. I don't think it should be controversial to say that someone who is behaving in a way that would warrant an exclusion should be removed from DT if they will not correct their behavior (and previous inappropriate ratings). Similarly if someone on DT1 is refusing to remove someone acting inappropriately refuses to remove someone acting inappropriately (after a discussion and a period of time) from DT2, they have no business being on DT1 in the first place.
The practice of having ~zero regulation of the trust system has only lead to massive regulation by a select few who are accountable to no one, and will face no real repercussions for acting in bad faith and/or unfairly.
The above practice is analogous to the government refusing to impose modest regulations on the actions of an oligopoly, which results in the oligopoly imposing many restrictions on what citizens can and cannot do, and acting unfairly in the process. It is nearly impossible to rid the oligopoly of its power, due in large part to high barriers to entry. While on the other hand, if the government were to impose modest regulations unfairly, voters could vote the government out of power.
The resulting drama from the above, does result in a lot of page views however....
|
|
|
|
If you are planning lending usd or borrowing usd, and using crypto as collateral, you will be legally consider an exchange and will need KYC.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would post the statute or regulation so the OP (or anyone else considering entering this business) can refer to it and comply with all it's requirements. |
|
|
|
I am going to go out on a limb and say both the OP and " bIazed" are fake. Perhaps they are the same as this guy, but I am not sure. IIRC, blazed previously said he is not going to escrow anymore, I believe after he was involved in this controversy. Weird... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
