What's the point in just removing sigs from Meta? What does that solve? Any posts that are made purely for payment would just be moved elsewhere so it solves nothing other than certain users not being able to get paid whilst arguing with unstable idiots like cryptohunter and their ilk. If you're going to remove sigs from Meta then why not everywhere else? I'm not against banning signature campaigns either. What I am against is removing them from certain sections just because you suggest it. Pointless other than entertaining whatever rubbish cryptohunter aka you comes out with.


See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2580400;sa=showPosts


I don't think you know the difference between opinion and fact (or 'observable truth' in this instance). 


I won't delete anything. Are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion on whether something is rubbish or not?


Go ahead. I don't care. You are free to create whatever threads you want but the thread will just end up like every other you create on this account and any others.


It is my opinion that you post rubbish. In my opinion I think you've probably got some mental issues that you should get help with, but I'm not a Doctor. Are you seriously trying to tell me my opinion is wrong? Is someone describing a piece of music or film as rubbish right or wrong?


Who exactly have a I vouched for? Anyone I have left feedback for or added to my trust list is done so because in my opinion I believe their feedbacks to generally carry weight or are on a whole good for the community, regardless of what petty beef they may or may not have got themselves in for.

But even with VAR the correct decisions are sometimes not made. We've already seen incorrect decisions happen using it. Sometimes decisions go in your favour and sometimes they don't. Sometimes people get punished for the same offence where no action was taken in another. Sometimes a foul is given when it was a complete dive. Sometimes they're not given when it's an obvious foul. Sometimes a player is fouled in the box but they keep on going rather than go down and nothing comes of it, but if he had of gone down a penalty would have been given. That's one thing I like about Messi. He hardly ever goes down and keeps fighting even if he's been hacked at and will usually try stay upright at any costs, but he could just as easily fall on the floor and get a penalty and in many cases I think he should have done, but that's the game for you. It's swings and round abouts. Where there's a human involved then there is both opinion and room for error and that won't change with VAR. It's good that it helps makes the right decision but at what cost? Ten minutes taken out of the game whilst refs decide on what to do over a few instances some of them very petty and made out of desperation from the opposing team?

If we're not going to rely on the officials then we might as well get rid of linesmen and maybe even referees all together. Maybe just let the decisions down to VAR or even just an algorithm so you take the human error out of it. Nothing is ever going to get it 100% right but we need to take the positives and negatives into account. VAR is only something that going to be happening in top flight football anyway whereas anyone else playing the game whether professional or amateur is still going to have to carry on the same without such technology.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't think you've been on many other forums if you think this forum is the worst for newbie discrimination and I've been on much worse ones where they treat Newbies like shit. In fact, I don't think there's that much hate against new users here, but here I think you're getting mere Newbies confused with spammers and shitposters. Nobody would care if someone signed up to this forum and made great posts but as you've already touched upon signature campaigns and ICO bounties drive people here in droves who don't even care about bitcoin in the slightest other than that they heard they can make some money here. When you have to read thousands of mindless comments purely being made for payment it's understandable why people are going to get annoyed with them specifically, but it's not strictly a newbie issue; it's just many of them happen to be newbies.

I've made the comparison before it's like people signing up to a Lamborghini forum when they don't like cars and can't even drive. Why would anyone sign up to a forum on a subject that they have no interest in? Well they generally don't. Unless that forum is bitcointalk and you can earn a living by posting drivel.


The people who tend to care about rank are usually those who only have financial interest in it in the first place. Most don't care about ranks and a truly great poster will breeze through them over time. Yes, it takes a long time but we've all had to go through that and ranks should mean something and should be earned, otherwise there's no point in them.


Both reporters and the staff that handle them do so on opinion and is purely subjective. Somebody might report something as spam and the staff may disagree. Staff here also don't get involved with scams but that doesn't mean the community shouldn't get involved with what they think is unjust. Should people turn a blind eye to scams and frauds just because they're not mods?


Sadly conspiracy theories are very common when you have a victim mentality or feel like you've been wronged somehow. It's much easier for as person to handle something if they create a story or narrative to make out like they're being persecuted for something when the reality of the situation is usually much more dull but the conspiracy theory is always the most exciting.




No it isn't. The problem with this forum is people get away with far too much with no repercussions at all. You are seemingly free to post rubbish across multiple accounts and you are left alone to do so. That doesn't mean you're not going to get treated like an idiot and people leaving you or anyone else negative feedback does not encroach on your freespeech. People seemingly love free speech until it punches them in the face and then they turn around and want that person banned, silenced or imprisoned somehow. That's pure hypocrisy If I've ever seen it. Freedom is good and people should be given as much as possible, but obviously there needs to be some restrictions because not everyone can play nice or by the rules.


I think they care but it's a combination of time, money and effort and balancing all that with as much freedom as possible which is ultimately what theymos seems to stand behind. Sadly everybody can't have it their own way and you're never going to appease everyone. Some people would prefer it if staff ruled with an iron fist whilst some think they should do nothing. Some think the way staff handle things currently is fine, but there is obviously always room for improvement.

I agree with this. If you feel like you're doing something wrong or compromising yourself by promoting something potentially shady then you should trust your instincts or morals. As for whether users on yobit deserve negative feedback or not that is an entirely different discussion.


Has he actually been on the campaign all this time though? I thought it shut down long ago and there's been quite a few inactive and barely active users that still seem to bare yobit's signature, but I just assumed they just never removed them or never joined another campaign. Has it been ticking over all this time? There were very few people left on that campaign from what I remember.

I'll respond to mdayonliner's completely off topic post in this thread here because I think what he said is relevant:

Deleted post:





I'll keep an eye out for it.


Well at least you can see that this is an alt with a clear agenda, so I'll give you that. Whoever it is is another debate but I wouldn't at all  be surprised if this account is just you being an idiot with some sort of preemptive defence by outing it so you can further whine like a baby about the situation and get some more drama out of it.

Just for the record, I'm not at all saying Mulann2 is his account and wouldn't have even thought so but mday's behaviour here in publicly drawing comparisons between the two is a little suspect and seems a bit too desperate to be noticed in my opinion.

And people are all for it for personal reasons as long as it financially benefits them regardless of the costs to the forum. You are obviously biased more than others and I'm guessing you have at least one account on that campaign. Most people who aren't on this campaign can look at it from a neutral perspective whilst those who are on the campaign obviously have great financial motive to defend it at all costs.


Most campaigns say they're against spam when in fact they do nothing. This would have been the case here if people hadn't kicked up a fuss about it.


Who is patting them on the back? I think their campaign is very poorly run and is a problem here and something should be done about it, but yobit has miraculously dwarfed the spam coming from that campaign in only a matter of days and that tells you a lot.



You're wrong here. Their original campaign was very poorly run and was infamous for the spam being caused because they had no manager and accepted everyone and paid everyone automatically and that's what's happening again. In fact, Yobit was the first campaign I left negative feedback against because the spam was appalling and they ignored all my messages to do something about it. Now they've got lots of negative more probably won't cause them any issues but we shouldn't be letting the issues they are causing slide.


If someone actively promotes a scam then they're liable for negative feedback. Whether you think Yobit is a scam or negative feedback is warranted on their users is a different discussion.


Why should mods be left to clean up their mess? They're not getting paid to run campaigns and that should be done by the companies and those who they employ to manage their business here. All badly run campaigns should be given a warning and then banned from the forum if they do nothing and that would include this campaign currently unless they clean up their act but admins don't seem to want to do that so it's left up to the community to decide on how to handle problem campaigns.




The very great irony here is that I personally wrote that years ago when I took over their campaign to clean it up and I was the one enforcing it at the time. Now nobody is. That's the problem so just pointing to that like they've got some standards here is null and void. Their campaign is full of shit posters and also negative feedback users so clearly nothing is happening regarding quality control at the moment and that needs to change.

Ref links are a grey area. Technically as per the rules, they're not allowed outside of the signature and many threads have been removed in the past if you post them for people to sign up with even if you offer payment to do so. Do I see anything wrong with that? Not really. I guess it's a kind of service and both people are making money from it as long as it's not a scam and they actually pay you. I've personally let many ref links slide in the Gambling section when tipsters have been giving out free tips, but removed plenty of other threads where people have posted their ref link whether they offer payment or not, but maybe we should rethink the rules on that for further clarification.


If a thread is sent to the trashcan you don't get a notification. That's how it's always been.


And there' probably many you haven't seen that were removed for doing the same. Mods don't spot everything and many will only act if they're actually reported by someone. With that thread it's not explicit either, though it's obviously very likely a ref links is involved.

The forum doesn't moderate scams so I don't think this is something the forum administration would get involved with, but there's also probably nothing anyone can do to prevent this. This sort of behaviour will happen in any scenario of auction whether it be on eBay or Sotherbys (or any other auction house). I would suggest those who partake in shill bidding instead just not bother with auctions and sell the item for the price they actually want rather than waste everybodies time in a scummy fashion.

Another decision that makes me think the offside rule should be changed. Should we really be disallowing goals for being inches off side or because you might have been a tiny bit off side at one point. It really doesn't matter. Sometimes the ref misses things and that's part of the game. VAR is still missing things but we have to stop the game for five minutes to find out. It's annoying seeing players wait in anticipation to see if the goal has been allowed or not or the opposite like last night where City thought they'd clinched it in the dying minutes and were going mental only to be told it wasn't a goal. Honestly, I don't even think off side should be checked. If the officials miss it then so be it.


It hit his arm then came off his thigh. They didn't show the angle that showed that clearly. The handball rule also needs to be changed in my opinion because there's far too much inconsistency. I don't think those sorts of handballs matter. It wasn't on purpose. It was accidental. Nothing could have been done about it but sometimes ref gives them and sometimes they don't and in this case VAR didn't even pick it up so what's the point of it? Had the other angle from behind the net been shown it probably would have been disallowed. Annoyed me last week with the penalty on Danny Rose. Yeah, it hit his hand but he couldn't have done anything about it and he was even booked for it. 

I think we should just get rid of this rule that people can advertise within threads because it just leads to confusion. I'm not explicitly against users doing it but isn't it unfair that some threads are allowed to be monetised whilst others aren't? We already have a rule that says no adverts outside of the signature but with this exception users see others doing it and then assume that it's ok for them to do so and they can advertise in any of their threads they want without prior permission.

It's obvious some users are just creating threads so they can try monetise them and this will only become more prevalent as others catch on. Look at the thread given as an example in the op. Not only does it have a blazing advert at the top of it he's also trying to monetise it in two other ways. He's left his bitcoin address at the bottom asking for tips and another alerting users to tell who sent them (probably because some of them offer kickbacks when someone sends them business their way):

I dunno. I think this will just lead to people trying to farm their feedback to try achieve the rank. I think there should be a new level above Legendary though. There's a big difference now between a new user signing up and eventually achieving legendary and someone who signed up a few years ago and just got it by being here a while. Maybe the activity to get Legendary should be changed so it all has to be earned merit and not airdropped and anyone who doesn't have sufficient merit is demoted to Hero. There's not really any benefits to being a Legendary over Hero anyway other than in name so it won't matter much. That would then at least give the rank some meaning. There's far too many Legendaries about now and there's probably not gonna be many more made naturally so I think there should be some distinction between those who just go lucky.

I've spoke about a new rank before. Fixing Legendary to 960 merit or upping it drastically would still be a good idea:

About 3:Fiddy GMT. From previous free slots becoming available it's not something Darkstar decides straight away and sometimes takes a day or so to go through all the applicants so you'll probably be alright to get a chance to apply. Also, as Joel_Jantsen said it's not first come first served so likely no priority will be given to early applicants unless you're very late to apply after he's already decided.

You don't need to bother with a spreadsheet if you just use a bookies that tells you your profit or loss. Skybet gives you the stats for 7 days, 30 days and 12 months. I'm sure others do as well. Either put x amount into your account every week (until you've built up a nice profit and you don't need to) or put in a lump sum for your bankroll that you're prepared to lose and if you do lose it then cut your losses and just quit. Hopefully that won't be the case and you can keep playing with your profits which is what I do and withdraw it at the end of the season or keep it there and keep going. People should be keeping track of their wins and losses because you'll have no idea how much you're truly winning or losing and things can go off the deep end if you don't. I think treating gambling like you do trading or with investing in bitcoin is a good idea (only play with what you can afford to lose), though I'd feel a little off calling gambling an investment personally. 

I think with betting it's best to see it as entertainment and a bit of fun rather than a way to make money. Sticking to £25 a week is cheaper than a night out or a takeaway and it adds extra excitement to the weekend for me so win or lose I've spent £25 on entertainment. If you stick to a bankroll and only betting a certain amount each week things won't spiral out of control and you won't start to chase your losses. When the Premier/Champions League is over I don't bet at all unless there's an international tournament on, but I stick to £100-£150 for my bankroll for that.

I've done even better in previous seasons. Last year I was only about £500 profit but the ones before that were £1k plus and over £3k before that. Think I was over £5k profit on the 2014 World Cup and following Premier League season combined (though I won over £500 on the opening game when Brazil won 3-1 and I got the correct score and Neymar to score). I strictly stick to three folds for football. Any more and you're unlikely to win. I usually play Skybet's enhanced Saturday offer as well and it usually comes in more often or not. Sometimes I might get experimental with my free £5 bet though. Maybe stick a draw or two in on the games that I can't call.

Won again last night with the Skybet boosts:



Only £50 profit but better than nothing.


I've thought about going higher stakes but don't want to go to crazy. Obviously the higher the stake the bigger the win but also bigger the loss. I could quickly lose my bank roll if I'm doing those stakes, but given my winning history going higher odds would make sense, though statistically my luck can't last forever. Maybe I'll see how much I have in my bankroll at the end of the season and move up to £100 bets or something. It's all profit so far so even if I lose that I'm still up. Don't want to throw it all away though.


Kinda already explained it. I tend to stick to threefolds on the favourites at odds of 4-5/1 or more. They obviously don't always win but I'm usually up over the month and sometimes I hit winning streaks where I'm 3-500 up a month. Sticking to a limit also helps. I usually do £25 stakes every week though double when Champions League is on. Look out for Skybet's enhanced accumulators. As above, they give you an option of going with the draw and other team winning on the closer matches which is sometimes good to put on to cover your bases. Betting £25 a week will also get you a free bet which gives you a chance to try get your money back at least or even more if you go experimental. Won a few hundred quid a couple of times from my free bets.


I wouldn't back West Ham away. Maybe at home, but those sorts of games I tend to go for draws.

I'm glad Liverpool won as I want them to win the title, but that late goal cost me a perfect score  .


What's wrong with accumulators? I win most of my money on three folds. I usually put £25 on them and look for minimum odds of 4/1.
Just hit over £1k profit in the past 12 months recently:



I usually do much better as well. The only tournaments I've ever lost money on so far are the the last Euros and World Cup. Only lost my £100 bankroll which was all profit from previous seasons so still no losses in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder how many people are actually submitting their photos here. Some of them definitely seem non-ironic.




Excuse me, stop misgendering. There are over 71 genders.





I'm not sure what these guys are trying to achieve here.

Out of all the posts they could merit why would they merit that one? Doesn't make any sense. At least make an attempt to hide the abuse. I guess this is one downside of requiring x amount of merit to be able to join a campaign. On the face of it it's a good thing, but not really if someone just accepts anyone as long as they have the x amount of merit. That's why campaign managers should be vetting their applicants. If that user received all their merit within the last day or two of applying and for shitposts then that should set alarm bells going. People's post history should still be looked at regardless of how much merit they've got.


If you read the thread you would see there's several pieces of evidence tying them together, thus proving the abuse in this case.

I don't think we should be giving out ranks just because people ask for them. That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of them in the first place. Merit is hard to get but at least it's an achievement when you do. Before the merit system the ranks only meant you've been here x amount of time and it was because of that that people were abusing the system and farming accounts in their thousands. Now ranks actually mean something.

With that being said, I've been pushing for people to be able to purchase the benefits of some of the higher ranks via more donator titles because merit is rather difficult to achieve consistently and in huge amounts and people still sell accounts and it's still big business, but you wouldn't be able to buy the rank title directly, but an equivalent ie Senior Member = Silver Member & Legendary Member = Gold Member etc.


Exactly. People put too much emphasis on ranks. If I see some random Legendary account pop up that I've never really seen before then I usually have reason to distrust them more than anything (or be suspicious of them at least).


I'd say reputation rather than just green trust. Anyone can get green trust if they're smart and do deals with the right people, and that's why reputation is worth more than anything. If your name means something around here then people are more likely to trust you. A familiar face and someone who is active in helping the community builds their reputation over time and that's how it should be.

Only if you're also willing to jump in his grave.