Older versions of electrum allows electrum servers to serve clients custom error messages that include text. The electrum server that Joel_Jantsen was connected to served him the error message saying to download the fake "electrum" wallet that contain malware.

The original wallet software that Joel_Jantsen was using was not malware.

As of now, electrum servers will not connect to older versions of electrum, so they will naturally find the *real* website to download from.   

The link you posted was:
Is the "tid=23&pid=67" portion of the link not a referral link?

edit: per above, you say it is not. I don't know why your post was deleted. My apologies.

If you responded to a post that gets deleted, it will not count the same way against you the same way a post that is deleted because it is off topic on its own. Although you should avoid responding to off topic posts. If you see a post that is off topic, you should report it and you can put in the note that you would appreciate a PM if the report is incorrect— this will go a long way in helping your overall case in you not getting banned, also if a moderator messages you explaining why your report is wrong, they are taking the time to help you and are not against you. Also, keep in mind that you don’t need to respond to every post you disagree with, nor that is incorrect and you don’t need to respond right away.  

I have no idea if those posts are part of the 61 reports theymos is referring to.

Having a post in a self moderated thread deleted by the OP (not a moderator) is for all intents and purposes not going to count against you. I have heard that continuing to post in a self moderated thread after being asked not to can result in getting banned, but I have seen multiple people post many times after being asked not to and nothing happened to my knowledge.

You don’t need to write very long posts, however generally it is best to not write a single weird post. Like I said, I would not find it unusual for someone with 13k posts to have 10 one word posts. My opinion is if they were written a long time ago over a long time, they shouldn’t have any real impact on any decision to ban you, if it ever came to that. My suggestion is if you want to post a one word response would be to post a sentence or two explication and/or provide a quote of yours or someone else to explain.

---

edit: I just reviewed the various threads your posts were deleted from, and most of them were in threads whose last post were over a year ago, and the rest had their last post made more than 6 months ago.

There are currently 14 posts of your in the modlog, and 4 of the posts of yours deleted had a post by someone else deleted at the same time, and 10 of the threads had no other posts deleted at the same time.

It is perhaps possible a moderator was catching up on very old reports, but I think it is more likely someone was reviewing your post history looking for posts that break the rules, going back years. If the later is correct, one can reasonably conclude that someone is trying to pad your "stats" in regards to reports against you in an effort to get you banned. If the later is correct, I think this behavior should be condemned, and I don't think it is appropriate to be making an active effort into trying to get people banned presumably because you disagree with the person.  

this is incorrect. The deleted post is sent by automation via SMF.

The post by LFC_bitcoin was deleted (it was a low effort/ value post), and any replies to that post were also deleted. This is similar to why this post was deleted— it was a zero effort post and was deleted and any reply to that post would also get deleted, if any.

If you replied to a post that gets deleted but adds content not only responding to the deleted post then your post won’t get deleted but it might get edited.

There may be an argument for theymos to create a "newbie plus" account type, in which someone can purchase the ability to post pictures and have lower "waiting" time (they have to wait less time between posts, and have the ability to send more PMs/day), but not have the signature ability of a Copper Member, for a lower price.

The only reason I can see someone paying $15/merit is to rank up to Junior Member, but doing the above would effectively allow someone to do that in a "legitimate" way, and would hurt the demand for merit on the black market. 

[

---

5 of the above accounts has merit from nevis, who was selling his account and has sent merit to:
Merit sent by Nevis from January 24, 2018 until April 05, 2019 (source)

Nevis has sent merit to the following people:
chickinini
TinaMoran
NilaMutac
poetmo
kantotinio
LillyBogan

At least three of the above were part of those "colluding with Russia" on ]this thread, although their trust lists appear to have since been changed. Except for one of them, they all have exactly 10 merit.

ace4549 also has sent merit to 4 of the 6 alts, although he has sent a lot of merit:

Looking more closely at ace4549's merit history, it appears he was likely "abusing" merit in some way. He gave several posts in this thread merit. The majority of the rest of the posts he gave merit to were not in threads he ever posted in, and in the majority of times he gave merit, he gave merit to exactly one person. When reviewing the threads he gave merit it, I did not specifically keep track, however I would say both were the case "all" the time except ~2-3 threads. He does not have any "merit giveaway" threads. I noticed some additional people he gave merit to have negative trust for "collusion".  I suspect that ace4549 may have been selling merit based on the above, in any case he is banned currently.

edit:
Perhaps you could remove their sMerit for those who are not already banned. In theory, they can use the ~580 merit they received, and send it to 29 additional accounts to have 29 other accounts have 10 merit.

edit2:
I would also point out that I received 200 sMerit when the merit system was introduced (IIRC), and someone abusing that merit could turn that into ~400 merit, so it would not take a lot for someone to be able to get 580 merit to various alts.

You have ~13k posts, and it appears there were at least 10 in which you said “no” (and similar one word posts).

Thinking about this some more, based on your claim that 10 of your posts were deleted, I suspect someone reviewed your post history and reported 10 of your posts with one word. I suspect you will only need one guess to figure out who reported them and yes, she likely was trying to cause trouble for you.

Unfortunately, when you receive a PM notifying you of a deleted post, there is no thread link, so you cannot go back and see the thread. If you asked me how many one word posts someone with 13k posts has, I would say they have at least 10, perhaps more.

I personally have bumped my own various topics hundreds if not thousands of times over the years, and although I always try to remember to delete old bumps, sometimes this gets overlooked and as such they are deleted by a moderator. I would say I have had more than 10 of my old bumps deleted over the years.

I think a better way to combat the bump-spam problem in the altcoin section is to change the order in which threads are displayed from time of last post to something different.

A moderator deleted many of your posts that were low value all near the same time, perhaps all in the same thread, but this is not clear based on your post. edit: I don’t think this is true if 10 were deleted.

I don’t know who deleted them, but that doesn’t matter.

In the future, try to avoid replying with only one word, doing so will almost always be a low/zero value post.

The votes are limited, so except for  Bazinga442, who has two, the rest only have one vote. These people as a whole, only have the ability to get one person on DT1, and they will need help.

This falls outside of the criteria that theymos previously said will cause him to blacklist people -- I believe he said he will blacklist in cases in which you are putting your own alts on DT1, but that is likely not the case here. All of these people did receive merit (although under suspicious circumstances), which does entitle them to vote, although not multiple times for a single person as appears to be the case here.

I think it is a very bad idea to mix the merit system with the trust system. This person for example should have 4 "250" votes, and 100 "10" votes, based on this:
as I believe that person deserves to be legendary, even though I don't know him, or have any reason to trust or not trust him one way or another.

Those sockpuppets (you and I presume) included anyone who excluded Lauda from their trust list, and excluded anyone who included lauda on their trust lists.

The reason why he is included on their trust lists is because he excluded lauda and TMAN

---

That quote was referring to different research I was planning on doing.

I am guessing this is because:


Rmcdermott927 Distrusts:
1. ~TMAN (Trust: 243: -0 / +25) (DT1! (18) 879 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. ~Lauda (Trust: 300: -0 / +31) (DT1! (23) 868 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I was actually planning on doing some research starting at Rmcdermott927, not because of him being included into DT1, but rather because of what I was here, as it seems there might be some evidence some people are being excluded specifically because of who they have on their trust list, specifically, I was going to look into a group of people potentially excluding anyone who trusts (via their trust list) who is critical of said group. Although it seems the Rmcdermott927 exclusion was somewhat resolved as of the last trust list dump.

You forget to quote the part in which I said it is ridiculous to imply that I was saying you would get any of the above *given* to you.

Considering that you don’t participate in any of the above, perhaps it would be more accurate to say your post was outright dishonest.

Edit:
Perhaps the benefit of being on DT has been diminished somewhat as a result of there being more DT members. However the benefit still exists. It doesn’t look like you have traded very much but have a decent amount of trust (strange/unusual), but I can assure you one thing that will be looked at when someone is deciding if they will trade with you is if you are on DT — it is a gage of how much others trust you (although the current criteria is currently very bad and inferior to what it previously was). 

You can use bitcoinwisdom.io (a clone) as an alternate. The '.com' version has been buggy for some time now.

I am not sure how my post implies OgN is a "saint and...beyond reproach"

You have to either be naive, dishonest, or both to claim that being on DT does not result on better terms for signature deals, does not allow you to trade on better terms, doesn't provide better/more business opportunities.

It is ridiculous to imply my post was saying you would be *given* money in exchange for nothing by being on DT.

It looks like the seller is "out of the office" until April 19. That seller only has two transactions, and it is possible neither of them is him selling merit, so I would not worry about him now. If he had a larger business, I would be more concerned.

While yes, I did monitor the various marketplace subs, and did put a lot of effort into research in stopping various scams, I largely followed the standards you are advocating for, perhaps also including when someone *attempts* to do any of what you believe is acceptable for negative trust -- if someone makes a serious attempt to steal, but are unsuccessful, I think in most cases others should be warned. I can't recall any instances in which I added a new "rule" that others had to follow to avoid getting negative trust, as many on DT1 have done in recent time.

Thanks.

I looked at the situation when it was posted in this thread. My opinion on the situation is QA should have resigned from his position as merit source instead of doing something he (should have) knew would get himself fired. From the looks of it, he had concerns about the merit system, and about the forum in general -- he could have voiced his concerns to theymos privately, or publicly, and they may have been addressed if theymos agreed, and if QA was still not satisfied, he should have resigned, or otherwise stopped giving out merit.

His underling concerns appear to be around the newer users of bitcointalk (who needed merit) to be more focused on various altcoins (and ICOs) than on bitcoin. The only way this could be addressed would be to limit the ability to discuss altcoins, and/or limit the ability to run ICOs and bounty campaigns. However both of these generate a lot of page views (ad revenue). I believe a lot of these people come to bitcointalk because of the altcoins, and if the altcoin discussion and ICOs/bounties were not allowed, these people would migrate to other platforms, however being on bitcointalk can give these people exposure to  bitcoin they might not get on other platforms.

You assume this is not a scam -- it may be. I am not sure how good fiver is at resolving disputes when the final work product is not delivered via their site.

As others have noted, the price they are selling merit for is very expensive, and is probably not cost effective for a shitposter to buy merit to rank up, assuming they get blindly accepted into a signature campaign with enough merit. It might be more cost effective to rank up to junior member status so they can do things like post pictures, verses buying a copper membership, but I think this is less bad.

Even if someone does buy enough merit to rank up, campaign managers should screen applicants enough to reject anyone who posts garbage, even if they have a lot of merit.

The OP removed the picture of the ad, and I am having difficulty finding it on fiverr. There is also the risk the administration will reverse any merit purchased if they figure out who is selling merit, and this would not be difficult to do -- all they would need to do is purchase a single merit from the ad, and look at their other accounts by looking at their browser fingerprints.

I am voicing my opinion on the matter.

I am not referencing your "attitude" I am referencing your professionalism, or lack thereof towards other forum members you are supposed to have authority over when they post in your section, and that you have influence over everywhere.

The above does not directly affect your ability to "clean up shit" in your section, it reflects on the forum itself via your 'staff' tag, and calls into question your ability to handle issues in a mature/impartial way, including issues within your section.

If you operate under the assumption that OgN has an overly inflated ego, or is delusional in terms of his success (I don't agree this is the case, but hypothetically...), I don't see any reason why anyone would want to harm his reputation -- if this was the case, he would do this to himself. However, OgN criticizing a certain group of powerful people does give an incentive to these people to try to discredit him to allow them to maintain power, and ultimately the income derived from said power.