I don’t think they are all necessarily scam sites. Some presumably want to actually be a place for discussion about bitcoin. Some also want to sell ads and will mirror this forum. Some may be giving people a way to read the forum without being subject to censorship such as the GFW in China, and similar censors in other countries.

I am currently the 95th most merited person on the forum and in the just under 16 months since the merit system was introduced, I have not yet received sufficient merit required to become a hero member. I was around when a lot of sMerit was airdropped to everyone and a lot of merit was being given out by a lot of people. There are more merit sources now, but much fewer people are now giving out merit.

The above means less than 95 people have become hero members, I know only a small handful of people have become legendary. I don’t know off hand how many have become senior members but I am pretty sure it isn’t many.

Based on the above, I think the merit system needs to be tinkered with a little bit.

This type of black hat SEO services are absolutely on multiple websites and I suspect a decent number of people are ultimately behind this.

I don’t think tagging this type of people are going to stop anything. If anything it will give a false sense of security that this doesn’t happen. I would prefer to be able to point to one of those sellers when explaining to someone that it might not be wise to believe something just because it has a lot of upvotes on Reddit.

There has been a relatively small number of people rank up to above Full Member (not all that many people have ranked up to Full Member)since the merit system has been implemented.

I am curious to know if you have any measurable stats as to how many higher ranking accounts have stopped being active over the past 18 months.

I don't think this will do anything to correct the DT system. Most people, even those with custom lists will use DT scores as a baseline for trying to determine someone's trustworthiness, and ability to participate in advertising campaigns.

He has been blacklisted from DT1, see below:
You can see he was immidiately removed from DT1:
I posted why I believe marlboroza is pretending to want to be removed in the post you quoted.

It is possible he does not want to participate in DT drama. He opened a thread asking to be removed from DT2 on Feb 11, and within 10 days, by my count, he had left an additional 50 ratings, and in the ~month since he opened his thread, he has left more than 120 ratings.

The above happened when he was very well aware that he is still in DT2.

Based on the above facts, I don't find it to be a reasonable conclusion that he was trying to get removed due to the DT drama.

It sounds like an endorsement to me.

The merit system is designed to award people for making objectively good posts, and not to award people for being trustworthy, or punish those who are not trustworthy. The sole basis for giving out merit should be:
If you are giving merit out (or not giving merit out) because of your personal view towards the person, you are not using the merit system correctly, and have no business being a merit source.

Giving (or withholding, despite being aware of an objectively high quality post) merit because of your personal views towards a person is borderline censorship, and is encouraging people to agree with you, and to write things you agree with.

I would ask that you cite someone who has claimed (credibility) I have either stolen or attempted to steal from them. Knowing you are unable to produce this, I will preemptively demand for a retraction.

I would also point out that have publicly claimed to be a doctor, who is bound by a strict of ethical standards, but you gave what amounts to a medical diagnosis (in saying "you have a gambling addiction, and a severe one at that"), while admitting you have not personally examined the person, which is unethical for a doctor to do. I also have circumstantial evidence, and have a belief that your field of practice is well outside of what you were apparently diagnosing.

I also have circumstantial evidence that certain people are both giving merit and using their trust lists in a way that involves a close personal (undisclosed publicly) relationship that would amount to something very similar to giving merit to their own alts, and would probably be viewed by most reasonable people around here as inappropriate, IMO. I don't yet have sufficient evidence to call the person a merit scammer, although I have put very little effort into looking into this, and only stumbled onto this while researching something else.

I would implore you to evaluate your own ethics before you go around judging other people based on incomplete and inaccurate information.

That account does not show up in the modlog in masse, and anyone who has 80%+ of their posts deleted is not going to be allowed to continue posting around here. It was you that deleted the posts.


I don't know what your point is about any of these people.
It is nonsensical to say that someone's entire history should be reviewed before giving merit to someone. I would refer you to the specific posts I merited, and if you have any concerns about those specific posts, I would advise you to voice your concerns. Merit is given for specific posts. If someone previously made crap posts, but has since cleaned up their act, they should receive merit for their good posts.

Further, as of when I reviewed your post the day you wrote it, they all had received merit from multiple reputable people subsequent to when I sent them merit (perhaps with few exceptions), so I am not the only person who believes they are making good posts. I am also not aware that any of these people have been banned for making crap posts. I do not know any of these people, have not done any kind of business with any of these people, nor have had any meaningful communications with any of the people you cited.

If you think I have ever written like any of the posts you cited, I would invite you to review my post history, and would ask you reevaluate your assumption. 

I don't think you are this blind and are playing dumb.

As of immidiately prior to him being blacklisted from DT1, he was voting for others in his trust list to be on DT1.

The thing is that he does not appear to actually want to be off DT. He has gained a more solid footing into DT2 than he was before he opened his thread. He appears to have put in a "show" effort into "trying" to get removed from DT2, and is not serious about getting removed.

I don't think marlboroza, what I believe amounts to pretending to want to get off DT2 is suspicious on its own, but he was in fact blacklisted from being on DT1, and was removed from DT1 immidiately.

Based on the below two facts, I believe marlboroza was forced off DT1, and was forced into making a public attempt of getting removed from DT2:

• Was actually blacklisted from DT1
• Appears to be pretending to want to get off DT2

It is not normal behavior for someone to not honor this type of request if they believe it is legitimate. It appears those who still have marlboroza do not believe he is making a serious request, and marlboroza has not done anything to correct this, assuming he actually wants off everyone's trust lists (as discussed above, I do not believe this). A good first step to trying to get someone to remove you from their trust list would include sending a personal message asking to be removed from their trust list, and to follow up if they do not comply.

That would only work to the extent that where ever the files are being stored are willing to keep the information up. If you encoded the following link into a transaction confirmed in the blockchain:
then whatever content you have at the above link will need to meet the standards of bitcointalk.org, and if it doesn't then your content will be removed. If your content is taken down, then you will need to find another platform to host your content, and confirm a transaction with a link to the content.

Your child wanting to be Batman would be the result of him watching a Batman movie and seeing that he is a “good guy” in the plot.

It also could be the result of influence from you, his parent, either from you telling him that it is good to be Batman, by you showing admiration of Batman or you showing that you enjoy the movie.

A parent letting their child dress up as Batman every day is probably doing something wrong. Regardless, letting the child dress up as Batman for as long as they wish is not permanent, the child can stop whenever he wants with trivial effort.

edit:
Doctors will take the Hippocratic Oath when they graduate medical school and become a doctor (the exact text sometimes varies between schools), and one of the lines in the oath is:
"I must not play at god"

One could argue any doctor performing this kind of procedure is violating this oath by trying to play god.

No. You don’t.

Assuming that you actually have the funds in your PayPal account (I am almost certain that you don’t), if the bank PayPal uses to holds customer money were to declare bankruptcy then you would only be protected up to the amounts of FDIC insurance they provide (I’m not certain they provide any pass-through FDIC insurance, but it would be a maximum of $250k).

If there was a levy placed on the money then PayPal would either have to pay it out of their corporate funds, or restrict your account up to the amount of the levy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This conflicts with the insulation that he does not want to be on DT1, nor DT2 anymore.

There is no question that he was blacklisted. The question surrounds the circumstances surrounding him getting blacklisted.
I agree, no questions regarding suspicious activity should be allowed to be asked of him. /s
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.

---

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. 

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:


/s incase it was not obvious

No it does not, but I read your post as if you were managing campaigns here for two years.

Perhaps:

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.

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.