Who owns the forum? Theymos. Who owns the domain bitcointalk.org? Cobra.

Were you able to contact TitanBTC and was the coin ownership 100% transferred to you?

Did you peel the coin? Are you sure it's the same coin as drbitcoinve said he peeled?

Edits:
Now reading TitanBTC sales thread again...
Is there a private key on the physical coin at all?


This sounds like there's nothing "real" attached to the physical coin when choosing the "2-factor Authenticated" option. Doesn't sound like 2fa to me if there's only a single factor... And the "redeem code" doesn't really make it 2fa, but just 1fa.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't want to create any "elite" list. I want to dilute DT list to not be any sort of elite list. It should merely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it's not treated as such right now. In any case, the whole DT thing is something that should not exist in a trust system. DT list is a structure that changes the whole nature of a trust network/system.


A heavily diluted DT list (or no DT list at all) would encourage people to make their own lists and also "trust score" would be curated much better. Right now few individuals can choose to wreck some peoples trust score. Same vice versa. In a heavily diluted DT list more peoples' voices would weight something.

Added a Serpcoin v0.1.

You need to have a legitimate coin to compare with. Grading prevents nothing, and a bad actor may even have graded fakes to make it less suspicious. Obvious fakes can be spotted by the community (if you present some pics), though.


Correct for both. I think some people in these forums could do better job at grading too, as sometimes at least ANACS places some very incoherent or even totally off grades on crypto collectibles.

#1 would be the Casascius 10 BTC coin (gilt or not). The 1 BTC coin is quite nice too.

Second place goes to Kialara 2015 bar.

Heya. All the listed coins are available. The original post is kept up to date.

I'll join too if there's a slot left. Thanks.

OK. Sounds alright. Thanks.

What's the ballpark value level of a Kialara Original 100k bits 2014?

I replied to Vod. Not going to sit silently when Vod (or anyone) continues to spread shit about me (or others), thank you.

Haha. You said ("I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy") that you don't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Right after certain private messages on the same day, your opinion 'suddenly' changed. These are publicly verifiable facts, not bullshit. You seem upset that I don't simply forget your wrongdoing.

How about that quote which attribution you faked? How about that blackmailing attempt? You are a true scumbag.

I've not scammed anyone. You're trying to trash my reputation by relying on people not verifying what you claim.

Of course. The people affected by the wrongdoing are the loudest about it, naturally. See e.g. banks, politics or whatever subject. On the other hand, the people being most supportive of current DT list are the people on it.


Indeed. It is not a commonly accepted practice here but e.g. in my country it is. Nonetheless, it's a practice which is common in some communities/countries. In any case, arguing that vendor bidding is untrustworthy, unethical or scamming is simply ridiculous.

The bitcointalk auction standard is not defined anywhere, and is very vague and only learned by watching what others are doing. It simply didn't even cross my mind that vendor bid may be not cool, as it's common in my country. Of course after seeing how community reacted to it, I learned that it's not part of the auction standard here, and I've kept numerous successful auctions since, for 2-3 years already.


It doesn't surprise me one bit that people are incompetent regarding auctions. Auctions are not simple at all. There are loads of assumptions etc.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction. Later on that same day his opinion changed 100% to the opposite, because I provoked him by telling him that I don't specifically trust him. He also threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating to him. I didn't remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. It's incredibly stupid for people to think that Vod rates me because of the auction, even after he himself told me that he will rate me (for completely other reason). Obviously he will not state e.g. "he pissed me off, this is me wrecking his account" in his rating. All the sources are public and verifiable, so go see yourself how it went. The PM conversation is the thing in there, and shows very poor conduct by Vod, conduct enabled by him being on DT.


It was a single case ~3 years ago. Why would I bid on my auctions here now that I know it's not part of the auction standard here? That's ludicrous.

This would give even more power to this DT structure. The goal is to encourage people to make their own trust lists and giving DT any more perceived legitimacy is not helping.

Of course the system (DT list) is the problem. There's no place for central authority in a trust network.

What I say makes sense. DT members do not get removed for all of their bad judgement, because there can't be universal "bad judgement", and DT is not decentralized control-wise. That's the problem of top-down authority.
Top-down authority is fine for moderation -- it's pretty much the only way. And that works exactly like that: "police department" doesn't cease to exist because of dirty cops.
DT list on the other hand is not meant to be any kind of moderation tool. Trust networks should not have any sort of central point whatsoever.

Btw Google up "vendor bidding" and educate yourself instead of staying incompetent regarding auctions.

The Pharmacist: I did the googling for you, as you won't do it as you haven't earlier. It's about time for you to learn about these vendor bids before talking about them more. So google up it yourself or see e.g. this or this or this.

This is one of the reasons why DT should be removed completely. Scammers will and have found their way on to the list. The fact that there have been scammers on DT proves that DT isn't to be trusted, and the perceived trust is largely an illusion. DT list should only be a "people unlikely to scam others" list, and being on the list should signal nothing else.

DT misuse is not insignificant and not acceptable. Even if it was insignificant, it wouldn't be acceptable. DT should be removed.