This is the THIRD topic by this author on the exact same flawed premise.  Here's the first and second topic.  The author wants to blame exchanges for the fact that they clearly have a gambling addiction and it's ruining their life.

OP:  Seek some help and support.  There are organisations who can provide assistance with this.

If that's the case, then how stupid must the rest of the world be for not adopting LTC and making it the #1 crypto?  I mean, if it really is that much better and all... everyone has had ~8 years to notice it.  Surely Bitcoin should have been left in the dust by now if that were the only consideration?

That, or you're wrong.  As usual.

If performance was the only thing that mattered, people would buy mopeds powered by jet engines.  But they don't, because it would involve making sacrifices in other areas.  The trade-offs are simply not worth it.  If you are incapable of understanding why compromises are sometimes undesirable, perhaps it is you who fulfils the role of dumbass in this conversation.

Ah, brilliant, so my suspicions are somewhat grounded in reality.  I do understand the beast, heh.    

Yep, all things considered, I'm now more confident than before in stating that banks offering crypto "services" won't bear any resemblance to how the exchanges do it.  Every conceivable safeguard will be in place to ensure that customers get nowhere near the crypto.  No touchy!  You'll relay your instructions to the bank, the bank will then make the transactions -if- they approve.  Wholly antithetical to the founding principles of Bitcoin.

I think I see the problem here.  Nuance isn't one of your strong suits, is it?  Everything has to be black and white in order for you to find it acceptable.  The slightest shade of murky and off the handle you fly.  It's pretty clear you wanted a list of posts in this thread by various users saying "Lauda is wrong because x/y/z", because you want some sort of unilateral intervention.  But that's not how trust is designed to work.  Pressure is acceptable, but it's never going to be as clear-cut as an automatic, instant removal from DT (unless the offence is egregious enough to warrant a ban, or theymos decides to step in, that is).  It clearly doesn't matter to you that you have the option to exclude Lauda AND exclude everyone who includes Lauda, which, as if by magic, changes that trusted feedback into untrusted.  You can quite literally build a trust network of your very own.  But nope, that's not enough for you.  You want to overrule everyone and force them all to see it exactly the same way you do.  No dissenting viewpoints.  No ifs, buts or maybes.  

Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.  Find some coping mechanisms or something.

Each person still gets to make their own judgement calls and some of those people are still choosing to include Lauda, despite the fact this isn't the first controversy they've been embroiled in.  Based on the guidelines that have been issued by theymos, that particular rating that triggered you is inappropriate.  But you are not judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what qualifies as "abuse" of the trust system.  It's not up to you to declare who suddenly has to go just because you don't like something they did.  It's currently unfair to eddie13 and that's unfortunate.  But the alternative, where an unsuspecting user who doesn't have a custom trust list might fall victim to a scam because the warning feedback for the perpetrator is no longer trusted, becomes a very real possibility.  And if multiple victims are scammed, that's arguably far worse than a pissy comment on eddie13's page that has already been countered twice.

//EDIT:  Three counters now.

I'm not trying to push people anywhere.  Totalitarianism is your speciality.  Also, I'd rather have the option of there being lifeboats available when compared to your vessel, 'H.M.S. Dumbfuck', where lifeboats apparently aren't permitted and people shouldn't waste their time even building them.   

Pleasant sailing!

Also watch out for people who like to think they'd make better decisions, but don't even know how to navigate.  And based on the comments they've made previously, it's obvious the ship would already be sunk to the deepest depths of the ocean if they had any influence over the heading whatsoever.

Your misunderstanding stems from the fallacy that you believe it matters who posts about whether it's "valid" or not, or what their justification is.  Expressing an opinion in one of your inane topics doesn't actually change anything.  We're not playing by your totally imaginary rules here.  That's not how it works.  What matters is who each of us does or doesn't include in our trust list.  Perhaps I need to be more patronising if you can't grasp that.  

Maybe you feel the need to question everyone's intelligence by assuming they don't factor incidents like this into their decision as to whether or not to include someone in their trusted list.  I'm personally content to assume that people on DT aren't stupid and have enough attention span to notice these things sooner or later (without making a massive song and dance about it) and will continually evaluate whether those ratings are still worthy of inclusion or not.  But please keep crying about people not dancing to your tune.  It doesn't look pathetic at all.  

I don't mean to sound patronising, but the idea is that if you don't agree with the trust left by the user in question, you don't add them to your trusted list.  It's up to each individual to draw their own conclusions on not just this particular feedback, but all feedback from that user, then decide if, on the whole, those ratings are accurate.  Clearly you don't like what that user is doing, so obviously you aren't going to trust them.  What more do you want?

For what it's worth, I certainly wouldn't have left red trust for that.  But that's just my personal take on it.  I can't speak for others.

I haven't added Lauda to my trusted list, as I do find some of their ratings a little reactionary.  But at the same time, I don't distrust them either and am aware of the many perfectly legitimate ratings they have left.

That's just it, though.  I'm not convinced customers will have that option when banks offer this "service".  It won't be secure enough if they operate the same way exchanges do, plus they'll want to make it idiot-proof so they don't have to deal with complaints from people who managed to lose their funds doing something stupid, so they'll play gatekeeper.  Like how share dealing often works.  You generally don't have direct access to the shares to do as you wish, you have to contact your share dealer with your instructions and they make the transactions on your behalf.  Then the fiat gets deposited to/withdrawn from your account accordingly (minus their cut). 

Counter argument:



Damnit, now I want a gumball/jawbreaker machine that takes satoshis.   

That sums it up nicely.  All we can really do for the future is try to encourage the standardisation of clauses in escrow contracts that would share the profits of any airdrops/forks/whatever-new-methods-of-claiming-free-alts-arise-in-future, so that it might be of mutual benefit to both parties.  Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

//EDIT:  DireWolfM14 beat me by a minute, heh.

//DOUBLE_EDIT:  I'll add a second point so as not to be repetitive:


I can see you're still not happy about it, but, technically, didn't we, as an entire community, drop the ball on this one?  If we knew of the existence of the forum funds and also knew of the existence of a no-risk airdrop and collectively didn't manage to put 2+2 together, aren't we all a little bit culpable for this?  I mean, obviously in hindsight, it feels like a no-brainer.  But still, I kinda feel like it should have occurred to more of us to point it out sooner.

Drifting dangerously off topic, but you'd be surprised how much people are really paying their banks, indirectly.  All the costs are hidden, whether it be through inflation, or the mark-up you pay on goods and services designed to cover the fees retailers have to pay to the banks.  The interest they "pay you" doesn't actually cover the true cost you pay to rely on them.  They definitely aren't upfront with the public about how they earn their money.  Perversely, their methods are not just deemed societally acceptable, but fundamental to the continuation of the traditional economy.  

But that's partly what we're all here to shake up with crypto, so the discourse on whether such practices should be frowned upon here is still positive.

Interesting quandary.  As a loose analogy, isn't this roughly equivalent to what commercial banks do?  They hold the funds, then use that value to generate additional value?  It's not like they seek permission from you about how they use that wealth.  Maybe you earn some interest in the process, but when you eventually withdraw your funds, the bank do keep the profits they made from the value they generated from you.  

I can see why some people aren't exactly comfortable with someone operating that particular business model when it comes to forum funds, but there was clearly no rule against it.  Depending on your personal stance, the opportunism is either admirable or sickening, heh.

While mob rule is obviously too tempting to resist for some, I'm going to stay on the fence and say that it's ultimately a matter for theymos and OgNasty to work out between themselves.

Am I the only one not excited by this?  People should be responsible for their own wallets, because not having to rely on third parties is one of the primary benefits of Bitcoin.  A small silver lining is that it at least gives us the chance to have that conversation with anyone who decides to take up this service from the banks and point out why maintaining control over your own funds is better. 

But I'm fully expecting the positive headlines about this will be short-lived.  These banks are almost certainly going to make the same mistakes so many exchanges have made, allowing a massive security breach and losing the funds.  That's just what naturally happens when a large group of customers need access to a single pool of centrally stored cryptocurrency.  The only way I could ever see it being secure is if they don't actually allow customers to withdraw cryptocurrency directly, which would make it almost useless.  The banks would then have full control over how, where and when you can spend those funds.  That would only bolster the argument about how you need to be in control of your own funds to see any tangible benefits.

We should categorically not be enthusiastic about commercial banks attempting to turn themselves into the gatekeepers of this system.  That's not how any of this is supposed to work.

I've only just noticed this topic, but have already responded to the author's other one on the same subject.  Does anyone else find this part slightly alarming?


Surely no one else is taking trading to such extremes?  I hope I'm correct in saying that's not normal behaviour, right?  It sounds like it's becoming unhealthy for them and that they might have a gambling problem.

Sounds backwards to me.  What's going to happen is that all the viable blockchains (the ones where those securing the chain are adequately incentivised to do so) will thrive.  But all these other supposed applications, blockchain for toasters, or whatever, they're all going to die horribly because there's no incentive for users to secure them.

If it's just a singular business securing a particular blockchain, it's clearly not the picture of decentralisation you're trying to paint.  So many of these projects are going to fail.  At the time of writing, the only successful blockchains are the ones tied to a currency, providing an alignment of incentives, meaning it's ultimately more profitable to contribute honestly rather than dishonestly.

Just to check, the pinned topic at the top of the board is still the 0.18.1 release.  Should this topic not be pinned instead?

//EDIT:  All sorted, I see. 

Your title is wrong and you're posting in the wrong section.  This is categorically not a "Bitcoin problem".  If the exchange you're on has more activity than you can handle, find one with less activity.  Or, better still, you can trade Bitcoin directly, peer-to-peer, in the way it was designed to be used.



You realise people use bots to do that, right?  You're probably bidding against a bunch of scripts that are coded to continually make trades.



No, that just sounds like you have a gambling addiction and you're not being honest with yourself.  Stop trying to blame the rest of the world because you have some sort of obsessive/compulsive problem and don't know when to step back and take a break.  I recommend you seek help with that, because what you've said here doesn't sound healthy.

Why would you edit and completely rewrite the OP to discuss an entirely different concept?  It's only going to confuse people reading the topic.  The early replies now don't follow logically.  This thread was originally discussing only having one block that gets constantly updated.

As the art contest is now closed, does that mean this one is too?  I'm a little surprised there haven't been more mascot submissions, considering how popular the other thread was.