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... |
|
|
|
|
The only thing you can do is ask theymos to try to buy the domain from whoever owns it. Otherwise you will need to know they are different.
Theymos might be able to make a trademark claim to get the domain registrar to give up the registration however this is not certain to work and would likely require a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
His farming accounts are one of the reasons why we have merit system
You are wrong. The reason we have the merit system is because a certain group of people were leaving negative trust for what they claimed to be poor posts, and the resulting outcry. There you go, another reason why you shouldn't be merit source. perhaps you should review my post history and reevaluate your statement. The amount of merit I have should speak for itself. However I have also long been considered to be one of the best posters of the forum. I have received many custom signature deals paying to advertise on my signature well above market rates specifically because of how many people follow my posts because of how insightful they are and how much effort is put into them. It was the actions by those who were tagging the people who were posting garbage that were harming the forum because after they got tagged they would often abandon their accounts to create a new one. In order to get banned for insubstantial posts, you need to post garbage over a period of time after receiving a number of warnings (such as having posts deleted and or getting publicity called out) — there are sometimes exceptions to the warnings. By essentially forcing people to abandon their accounts, these people were actively preventing the spammers from getting banned. The other account is you. In addition to the Blockchain evidence, you sent it trust confirming the same and you recently responded to someone on one of your threads as yourself. You deleted the majority of posts the account wrote. There isn’t any reason to open a thread about it because the evidence is there. |
|
|
|
|
IMO someone is trying to make the OP look bad and ruin his reputation.
The merit abuse is just too obvious for me to believe that someone was actually trying to give merit to themselves. Plus the fact that a thread about receiving the merit was immediately opened, presumably trying to bring attention to the *very* obvious merit abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
You have 50k "members" (of what exactly?) in an "exchange" that has not started trading?
Sounds unlikely.
|
|
|
|
I have a fun suggestion. How about Quickseller agrees that if he is caught using his merit to rank up his own alts, he agrees to be permanently banned from the forum.
Lol, I can agree to that. I would say this should apply to all merit sources  although I would not make that a condition of agreeing to this. His farming accounts are one of the reasons why we have merit system
You are wrong. The reason we have the merit system is because a certain group of people were leaving negative trust for what they claimed to be poor posts, and the resulting outcry. I am myself suspicious of people who try to hide their history....perhaps they have something to hide  |
|
|
|
How exactly are you aware of the merit system hours after joining the forum?
Are you associated with the person who sent you merit?
Please open the merited post link. I post my first post. Shafiqul Islam give me merit her profile link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1138414I saw the post but you didn’t answer either of my questions. |
|
|
|
Well, if Marco's scheme involved going long, Magneto may be in good shape. If it involved going short, not so much. I'd like to see how it all plays out too. Better get some needed supplies ready.
Im sorry, but what do you think giving him more negative trust is going to accomplish? He already has multiple negative ratings warning others about him being late on loans and that his behavior is indicative of trying to pull an exit scam. I can’t imagine what additional negative ratings could possibly say that would get someone to change their mind about trusting him. Because 3 different defaults on three different occasions is worse than 2 defaults on 2 occasions. We will see. If Magneto doesn't complain, then I won't chime in. I probably won't chime in if someone else new joins in the red paint party either. Get your facts straight if you're going to keep up with the Marco. I haven't defaulted 3x on loans.. Um, if you look at the whole context, I haven't accused you of defaulting on 3x loans at this time. I was only responding to why I would leave more negative trust if and when you do. As long as I don't see evidence of Magneto complaining, I will assume that you two are working it out in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. We have been communicating on telegram. Marco stated that he needed an extension and I did allow it. Due date is now end of the week. I don’t understand why he doesn’t give himself additional time to repay the loans he takes out when he ‘applies’ for his loans. He clearly is having trouble obtaining money to repay on a timely basis and should give himself a cushion in coming up with his money so his lenders are not consistently being paid after when they expect to receive their money. |
|
|
|
|
How exactly are you aware of the merit system hours after joining the forum?
Are you associated with the person who sent you merit?
|
|
|
|
That was a paid ad for dlive.tv. He said in the beginning of the video that he is "partnering up" with dlive, which is one way to disclose an advertising relationship with an entity you are promoting that promoters must do under FTC guidelines. dlive also has rules that govern the content of videos, and the only way these types of rules can be enforced is via centralization. There are also some advantages to having centralized social media platforms, as people tend to not to want to see NSFW topics unless they are specifically seeking out these topics, and people also tend to like a certain set of rules/standards, even if those enforcing these rules engage in modest censorship, such as is the case in most major social media platforms currently, IMO. I believe the below can be applied to centralization of social media (it was actually about privacy): they provide services/benefit that exceed these privacy intrusions, they should be free to continue using these platforms. The selling point of giving up private information is doing so allows the platforms to display ads relevant to the end user, and can otherwise provide useful information to the end user. I don't think Facebook should be lying about what they are collecting from their users, but I also can't say their customers *must* be mad when this happens. I don't think anyone should be forced to have certain levels of privacy if they don't want privacy, or if they believe the benefits of of giving up certain information outweigh the value of privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven’t reviewed the bill, but neither Trump nor Pence were elected by New York State in any way. They won a national election and the electoral votes from New York didn’t go to Trump/Pence.
Further, neither are employed by the state nor did they agree to release their returns prior to being elected.
I agree there are constitutional issues if the law was written so if the law was written that actually compelled Trump to release his returns. However, the way you describe the law, it doesn’t even appear to actually apply to Trump.
I would personally find it hilarious if they passed the law only to lose in court on the grounds that the law as written doesn’t apply to Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
