I already tried that strategy. Had nearly 3000 BTC and pissed it away on some I's and II's of users I've never heard of before. Perfectly reflects my mining experience. Excellent game totally real NFT market. Just get the merit gang to create dozens of farmed accounts like old times so we can get 1000 BTC injections and wash-trade your NFTs to multiple thousands. 
The only logical choice is to continually roll for random user fNFTs until you get a satoshi one, and sell that for 4% of the market cap. There is no evidence that fake-BTC is not subject to unbounded inflation. I am surprised that Bitcoiners seem not to notice this. 1000 BTC * # registered accounts +- theymos disturbances |
|
|
|
|
The only logical choice is to continually roll for random user fNFTs until you get a satoshi one, and sell that for 4% of the market cap.
inb4 alt account BTC inflation
|
|
|
|
Could those posts be reported as breaking the first rule regarding uninteresting and low value posts? Necrobumps are usually only acceptable when they provide something of dramatic value: to justify reactivating an old/obsolete thread, you have to bring a significant amount of depth or nuance to the discussion for revitalization. Otherwise, what would prevent people from just sorting by last active (ascending) and making agree-type spam posts or generic vague remarks to regurgitate information they haven't posted before?
I will often report posts that are 6mo+ old necrobumps if they do not serve any meaningful purpose. |
|
|
|
Especially the latter user, who has posted some very strange things, presumably a dox attempt. This was a veiled threat regarding the KYC information provided by those that did "image damage", since there were at least two instances of real-name accounts having been registered and having replied to Adkins-related threads. Check out their deleted posts between Jan 18 (CET) to Jan 21. |
|
|
|
an unlikely pattern for a phishing scheme. Time delays increase the difficulty of chain analysis if you're working to obfuscate the tainted inputs from the desired clean outputs - maybe not all phishing attackers, but smart ones would probably treat each case that had a large amount of BTC independently. Besides, it's best to wait for periods of highly-active blockchain volume to use as a smokescreen: current mempool stats show much lower tx counts and fees than some spikes several months ago. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5326990.0Half the comments on new gambling threads are anti-stake/sportsbet and pro adkinsbet. All these accounts are already heavily negative trusted but are allowed to keep spamming trash all over the forum. Welcome to Bitcointalk. Or rather, welcome to what it can turn into: I was wondering when someone would start (half-)weaponizing the strong inaction against shady behavior and the lax stance on spamming/trolling about the forum. The threshold between advertising for a service and segueing into it through a discussion is yet to be rigorously discussed but in the meantime, we can expect a whole slew of these to burst out of the shadows. At least the newcomers to the forum will know exactly what to do due to our comprehensive welcome message that exists. |
|
|
|
Positive should be indicators of actually having done some sort of business/trade, risk or not.. Just having made successful trades is a good indicator that they aren’t here just trying to scam.. No. That's a recipe for trust farming. Just go buy some trinkets from someone who hands out ratings to everyone and is in DT (and these days half of the forum is in DT)... no. "Unlikely to scam" should mean something otherwise what's the point. Hasn't the post-DT100 system somewhat shifted away from (or at least, transformed) business-primary basis for trust dynamics? Ratings no longer have the "risked BTC" field which would have served to add weighting to positive trust: deals of varying magnitudes are not equivalent. There's more work to be done, now, to determine not only whether you can trust an individual but also how far you can throw them much Bitcoin you can trust them with. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing (except towards new users) in that it incentivizes personalized trust system use but the execution could be improved. As an example, my positive trust rating is 19 (as of now, via DT-base) compared to DarkStar_'s 54. Should I be trusted with a corresponding 35% of the value DarkStar_ typically transacts? Abso-fucking-lutely not. How much should I be trusted with at this point? Who can tell? There are no risked amounts and you'd have to develop a case file, researching the feedback and references just to determine my scam threshold! Dilution of the trust system means that each user must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis: not only do you need to effectively run a DFS to gather the full scope of who is/isn't trustworthy starting from any particular individual, but you need to continually do this as the 100-tribunal cycles and as lists, opinions, and users are updated.
If that is the case then those members backing Sally could be inclined to exclude all the members that excluded Sally as well as those that left positive counter-feedback, the cycle in that scenario will be continuous. I disagree. Bring about the abstracted structure to that of intent and action and once you lay them out step by step, you can undermine any preconceived justification based on those scrambling ad hoc solutions. These fucking names... Sam and Sally - same first initials, seriously? If A performs dishonest trust action and is included by a set of members S A, this does not necessarily imply responsibility on any member of S A's end. If A continues to perform dishonest trust actions to the point where it is noticeable, presented to members of S A, and is subsequently ignored, then those members can be considered to endorse such actions. At this point, any consequential action against both A and S A (of which have been informed of A's actions) is based on the intent of stopping the initial dishonest act. As long as the larger space of DT100 users := S, is not compromised in their values or enforcement, this kind of situation fizzles out. The only scenarios in which this is cyclical is if |S A| > |S \ S A| and the monthly switch-up results in the cardinality flipping, or that there are competing smaller bubbles of |S A| ~ |S B|, |S A U S B| > ½|S| |
|
|
|
I do not understand what your table means and will not pretend I do. I followed the link on it but found posts dating back to 2019 while I reported a case that happened a few days ago. Can you shed light on that table and how related it is to the issue at stake? Each of those lines in the code block I provided corresponds to a report that was deemed good by a moderator. This usually means that a post is deleted: in some rare cases, they may be merged, moved, or have some other action performed. In 99.9% of cases, good report = post deleted. The link I posted regarding the deleted posts goes back to 2019 because it's scraping your profile: just scroll down a bit to get to 2021. That's why I posted my own list, so that people could cross-reference both for maximum transparency *. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * sure, I didn't post the local report time, but that's not necessary unless you want to see when the script was running vs. not |
|
|
|
|
On the first, nothing will happen and the joke will be that there is no joke. Short novelty, long epochtalk development cycle.
|
|
|
|
We are still paying to have epochtalk developed? I'm sure my great-grandchildren will love the grand opening party. |
|
|
|
This thread should have stopped at reply two. [Thread Viewer]Then it becomes a meaningless cycle of repeating the same "there exists a house edge" statement. How many replies do you want about that?
If every single gambling discussion eventually evolves into the abstracted structure of the house edge discussion which constantly repeats the same things incessantly, then what is the point of making these threads about specific games (i.e. beating blackjack vs beating roulette vs beating baccarat)? |
|
|
|
It is difficult for people to accept that the forum has taken such an attitude towards scammers, because in real life such people are prosecuted by the police and the judiciary, and they are punished in accordance with the law. Here, the greatest possible punishment for a proven scam is to give someone the opportunity to leave negative feedback or create a flag - which does not prevent scammers from continuing what they have done before. Yes, it's a good thing we all learned about this immediately after joining the forum and guarded ourselves against any transaction with an unknown member. Kind of sucks that there's nothing at all we can do about the scammers on the forum. |
|
|
|
so I'd be curious to know what those deleted ones looked like. Have at it.Before opening a new topic and blaming the mods, I would have taken a look at this post (or use one of the notification tools made available by other users). And before deleting those 89 posts, I'm sure the mod checked the relevance of at least (if not all) some reports. Neat! Here, for transparency. Re: Is this still a good time Maestro75 Good
Re: Currently i am quit from market and come in 2024 Maestro75 Good
Re: At what stage are we now in the crypto space Maestro75 Good
Re: CAN RIPPLE SURVIVE? Maestro75 Good
Re: holding bitcoin from early 2010 till today Maestro75 Good
Re: Never Be in a hurry Maestro75 Good
Re: The bitter reality Maestro75 Good
Re: holding bitcoin from early 2010 till today Maestro75 Good
Re: Huge profit but how to withdraw Maestro75 Good
Re: Huge profit but how to withdraw Maestro75 Good
Re: Biggest news for BITCOIN in 2021 🔥🚀 Maestro75 Good
Re: HoDL Pays Off Finally Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin needs more women. Maestro75 Good
Re: Let satoshi talk to us. Maestro75 Good
Re: I was invited to speak about Bitcoin to financial management college students Maestro75 Good
Re: Short term solid projects? Maestro75 Good
Re: the power of HOLD and believe Maestro75 Good
Re: What is preventing a crypto-exchange in another nation from not requiring KYC? Maestro75 Good
Re: When to sell BTC: $80K, $100K or $150K? Maestro75 Good
Re: A friend of me got hacked and lost 3000waves Maestro75 Good
Re: Is Dogecoin overpriced? Maestro75 Good
Re: Why do people follow Elon Musk? Maestro75 Good
Re: Don't stay on with a wrong trade Maestro75 Good
Re: Is Elon Musk looking to buy more Bitcoin ? Maestro75 Good
Re: Correction is coming Maestro75 Good
Re: First time scammed , very frustrated Maestro75 Good
Re: Dump just after a new listing? Maestro75 Good
Re: Patience is the Key Maestro75 Good
Re: Elon Musk twitted - Doge on the actual MOON! Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin can't be used for transactions? Maestro75 Good
Re: 'Cryptocurrency is not legitimate money,' says Nigeria's central bank governor Maestro75 Good
Re: Scam Coin On Binance Maestro75 Good
Re: Binance as the third largest coin Maestro75 Good
Re: Patience isn't everything Maestro75 Good
Re: Bounty hunter to presale investor! Maestro75 Good
Re: Exchange Dogecoin for what? (I need advice) Maestro75 Good
Re: Report ETH for SCAM because $80 fees Maestro75 Good
Re: Why Elon Musk Again & Again Tweet for Doge? Maestro75 Good
Re: 600,000 DOGE Stolen - Please Help Maestro75 Good
Re: Another crypto ban is here Maestro75 Good
Re: Alert: Get ready to deal with FUDS about Bitcoin Maestro75 Good
Re: Is there a limit in altcoin growth? Maestro75 Good
Re: Are people buying BTC @ $27000+ idiots? Maestro75 Good
Re: When This Scam Will stop?? Maestro75 Good
Re: Long, Short or Hodl for LTC? Maestro75 Good
Re: Bounty hunter to presale investor! Maestro75 Good
Re: Why Elon Musk shill for DOGE Maestro75 Good
Re: Can Dogecoin reach 1$ soon? Maestro75 Good
Re: Elon Musk tweet causes Dogecoin holders to dump Maestro75 Good
Re: How do you feel, Looking at the Bullrun market? Maestro75 Good
Re: No year of altcoins coming. All the big money is pouring into bitcoin. Maestro75 Good
Re: Let's show the world we can do what a reddit group did! Maestro75 Good
Re: DIA team kept their promise Maestro75 Good
Re: How do you develop stronger hands? Maestro75 Good
Re: Your Life After 10 years in Bitcoin... Maestro75 Good
Re: BTCs sudden rocket Maestro75 Good
Re: Shall I HODL DOGE? Maestro75 Good
Re: So this is it big players now rob small traders Maestro75 Good
Re: Elon Musk adds #Bitcoin to his Twitter bio Maestro75 Good
Re: bull run is coming and just waiting for your turn Maestro75 Good
Re: Why is there nobody talking about DOGE? Maestro75 Good
Re: after gamestop's short squeeze, reddit turns to doge. 600%+ today Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin can play tricks on your mind Maestro75 Good
Re: BTCs sudden rocket Maestro75 Good
Re: do you trust social media influencers on cryptocurrencies. Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin can play tricks on your mind Maestro75 Good
Re: Why Elon Musk shill for DOGE Maestro75 Good
Re: which one will you choose? Maestro75 Good
Re: Do not be too happy Maestro75 Good
Re: Paper money vs Digital currency Maestro75 Good
Re: You can lose transfering and withdrawing Maestro75 Good
Re: What is Bitcoin's twitter account? Maestro75 Good
Re: We once had a barter system here, but the government smashed it Maestro75 Good
Re: What happens if internet connectivity gets terminated Maestro75 Good
Re: Is it possible for a Billion max supply capped altcoin to reach $100? Maestro75 Good
Re: Are you in panic whenever there is a big drop in price? Maestro75 Good
Re: What is Bitcoin's twitter account? Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin hits $40k Maestro75 Good
Re: Bitcoin Future is still bullish. Maestro75 Good
Re: who controls the bitcoin price? Maestro75 Good
Re: I am being mercilessly scammed by somone from the bitcoin world Maestro75 Good
Re: How to avoid Bitcoin scams? Maestro75 Good
Re: BTC drop an opportunity to buy Maestro75 Good
Re: Ripple is dying Maestro75 Good
Re: Dont stay in crypto too long Maestro75 Good
Re: Ethereum going up? Maestro75 Good
Re: Is It Safe Now To Invest In Etheruem? Maestro75 Good
Re: ETH hits $1000 Maestro75 Good
Re: If you were me , Do you buy this coin ?? Maestro75 Good
You weren't the worst on the list, though. Be happy! |
|
|
|
It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members. Some users would argue, it's not a bug - it's a feature, in that the (relatively) free framework of the wide-scoped DT100 system results in a large pool of members participating in a coordinated effort to organically formulate a democratic-esque system of which to operate. Others would say that the vastness of the space results in many interspersed leaks of abuse and corruption which can sometimes pool into a puddle of members. The interpretation of the trust system and its guidelines vary across users (e.g. account sales, bounty abuse) but consensus is never going to happen all at once - the pigeons need to be fed crumbs at a time before their stomachs become loaves.
It is often quite vague, the threshold of "bad feedback" that a particular user can send before they are distrusted, yet one way we can curb a factor that may prevent users from doing so is to continually post redundant feedback such that the DefaultTrust coalition (so to speak) does not have to rely on a single point of failure for displaying negative trust/flags against a large swathe of scammers or worse* users. * worse than the DT member, however marginal.
What I do like about the trust system in general is that it effectively allows people to create policy-based (by way of representatives or themselves directly) bubbles of interaction in which users can choose the particular space they want to operate within. For any unconventional-trust users, they are allowed to distrust any relevant DT members and form their own DefaultTrust circle. You have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen. That's a good thing, though: reliance upon the base trust system is, of course, only a measure by default. I just wish there was an accompanying guide for new members that join the forum. |
|
|
|
Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate. Interesting addition: I can indeed imagine leaving a positive feedback when an otherwise trusted member gets negative feedback for no good reason. But for other cases, I'd stick to neutral only. "If you wouldn't give them a positive trust without the need for a counter, don't give it to them using the counter" seems like a good line of thinking. Similar to way back when people would give no-collateral loans vs. "account collateral"
What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well. The one core issue I have with this framing is that it is very analogous to the "how can you be tolerant if you are intolerant of bigots?" rhetoric. Intent is key in distinguishing actions, don't you think so? These are not equivalents, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't positive-counter blindly, but likewise, I wouldn't punish against it blindly either. |
|
|
|
|
Post-DT100 change: unnecessary.
Trust value dilution via both the linear evaluation and the expanded space of DefaultTrust members incentivizes reading the feedback as opposed to the previous system, where one would have the ability to (somewhat) consistently rely upon the curated theymos-approved list.
Neutral feedback should be used more often.
|
|
|
|
Wild theory... but what if Adkinscambet owner is actually game-protect?  That would be very silly, considering how AdkinsBet is actually part of the Curacao license scam that game-protect loves to talk about. Check it out: https://archive.is/qziFO#selection-261.32-261.46
Now somebody just needs to make a parody game-protect account to publish that whole "Many casinos and sportsbooks operating under the 1668/JAZ, 365/JAZ, 5536/JAZ or 8084/JAZ Curacao license scam operate illegal!" statement he liked to spam everywhere else onto the actual Adkins thread. |
|
|
|
One of these has the last-most recent post from way back in 2017, cheez-it christ... Lazy attempt of a smokescreen, that's what I'd say... |
|
|
|
since when? I thought the system was very outdated and for every 50 BTC risked it would uptick or something like that That's from a while back, before the trust pages (and updated rules) IIRC. The risked amounts are no longer on the feedback. |
|
|
|
|
jesus, you two need a room?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
