Are you that self-centered that you don't believe something or someone is harmful simply because they haven't harmed you?  Seriously, are you a teenager?

In general, that's true, and I'd say it's particularly relevant for sites like Changelly and some others which have a few scam accusations here and there, and some of them haven't been followed up on.  But regarding 1xbit.com, there's ample evidence to suggest that they're nothing but a scam--and the community has acted accordingly.

If you got tagged for promoting them after the consensus was reached to that effect, you fully deserve it.  No amount of text wall pleading is going to change that.

Lol.  I picked up on it!  After the second read-through, of course.  Sarcasm just doesn't translate well in forum posts for some reason.

If you can make an NFT out of a bitcointalk post--and if there's someone suggesting it--I think that's a sign that the mania is about to hit its peak.  IMO that peak can't come too soon, because I can't seem to avoid hearing about these worthless things no matter where I go.  Everyone is talking about them as if they're the new bitcoin, and how much money can be made from them, etc.  But somehow I never hear compelling arguments as to why they should be worth anything at all.

So what if you "owned" one of Satoshi's posts (or someone else's)?  Is that something you're going to treasure years from now?  Hand down to your kids?  Not likely.  More likely is that if you can't find a sucker to unload it to, you'll be stuck owning a piece of digital trash that doesn't truly represent anything unique and that no one will ever care about, much less want to buy at any price. 

No, I'm not saying there are more members involved.  But just based on all the BS I've seen on this forum over the years with situations like this, I'm kind of expecting evidence of more misappropriation of funds to be forthcoming.  So far crwth and bL4nkcode have yet to chime in, and I see that as an ominous sign.

Cabalism13 never said anything about needing funds from the charity due to the typhoon, just the story about his father--and frankly I wouldn't take that on face value when we're talking about embezzlement, so I'm not sure why you or anyone else would want to support his excuses (and that's exactly what they are).  How do any of us know that he was faced with a life-or-death situation with his father, where the only option was to take money out of the charity funds?  We've only got the word of someone who went silent after spending money that wasn't his and then after he was caught, stormed off and blamed the community for not trusting him enough (or whatever).

Frankly, if you're going to be holding funds for a charity or anything else that requires you not to dip your hand into the cookie jar, you really should be financially well off enough such that you wouldn't need to.  So the bottom line is that Cabalism shouldn't have had access to an entire pool of charity funds (or even 1/3 of it) if a $500 expense was enough to provoke him to steal.

Again, that's assuming the story about his father is true.  I don't suspect we'll ever know for sure.

The "e-residency" thing sounds pretty neat if you're a business, though it does make me think that Estonia is hard up for money if they're offering that a service like that which could obviously be abused or used for nefarious purposes.  Maybe that's the case, maybe that's a cultural difference in that they value freedom more so than, say the US. 

It would be a hell of a lot better if Estonia offered real citizenship for a set amount of bitcoin, though.  I might not have enough to pay for it, but it's something I'd certainly be interested in.  My country is rapidly going down the tubes, and other countries and their way of living are starting to look a whole lot better than they used to.  I'm not kidding about that, either.  Of course, Estonia isn't exactly an enormous country, so I'm sure they can't offer real citizenship for a fee.  Who knows how many people would take them up on the offer, or how it would change the lives of native Estonians.  Probably not for the better.

Seriously OP, with the way you write I don't think you ought to be criticizing professional journalists in any way.

Uh....inflation can be due to a number of factors, and it's not clear what you mean by "assets are less supply".  That's an example of why your raging against the financial journalist who wrote this headline seems ridiculous.  In addition, you'll see statements like the one you quoted pretty much on a weekly basis.  That's just how the press summarizes economic conditions and what the stock market did in a single sentence--even if that sentence isn't entirely accurate.

Amen.  And I've already advised OP to stop flooding the Economics section with low-value threads, but he doesn't seem to be taking the hint.  A better option for him would be to post in Politics & Society or Off-Topic or, ideally, on another forum.

I'm almost certain Lauda is a "he", because Theymos referred to Lauda as such one time, though that's making the assumption that Theymos knew enough about Lauda to know that particular fact.  But since Lauda was so private, even about gender, I usually tiptoed around it when referring to him/her.  Do you happen to have the scoop on that?

You're probably right about Lauda still hanging around bitcointalk, even if that means just lurking.  Then again, I'm not sure he'd be able to refrain from chiming in on certain issues, so who knows?  I also don't think it'd be possible for Lauda to use an alt, because someone would probably pick up on that right away.  OP here obviously tried to do that, but in this case he's wrong.  If Lauda really did have an alt roaming around the forum right now, I doubt he'd be able to mask his style of posting for very long, since it was unique and usually very inflammatory.

Lauda's English was impeccable, by the way.  I always thought he was a native English speaker, though for some reason I also thought he didn't live in the US or UK.

No, I'm definitely thinking of TradeFortress.  The story of his massive scams is one of the first things I remember reading on the forum, and I think that goes back to the days when I was just lurking occasionally (probably 2014 or so).  And I don't think it was Theymos who said the account changed hands but someone like Bruno--though obviously I can't remember the details exactly, so I could be way off.  But I'm sure it was TradeFortress that was mentioned.

Jesus, I don't know what the hell I was doing in January, but I obviously wasn't paying attention to the Reputation section.  I didn't post in the reference thread that's included in figmentofmyass's negative trust, nor do I remember that scandal.  So I'm just learning that he had multiple alts in the Chipmixer campaign, a feat I find astounding!  Thanks for mentioning those examples, OP.

With respect to TradeFortress, I swear I heard that the account changed hands a while back, because I was wondering the same thing you are, which is how and why would such a notorious scammer even show his face on a forum where he scammed so many people.  Memory is a funny thing, though (especially for me).  I'm not sure what I actually read or even if I interpreted it correctly, but I could almost swear that someone stated that the account was sold or given away after those scams went down.

Maybe someone here can set us straight on that.  If not, it does seem very weird that a member would have enough balls to keep posting here as if nothing ever happened.  I mean seriously, it sounds like TradeFortress should be in a jail cell rather than on bitcointalk.

No.  Ratimov might be a bit prickly under certain circumstances, Lauda created a much bigger presence (for better or worse) and seemed incapable of not doing so.  If Lauda and Ratimov were alts, I'd expect a lot more drama coming from Ratimov's account and for all the time he's been here I haven't seen it.

In addition to that, their posting styles are much different from what I can tell, with Lauda's English being much better than Ratimov's.  So no, I think Lauda is gone from the forum and isn't using any alts to "cheat".  There's nothing preventing him/her from coming back, so I don't see why there'd be any need to use an alt in the first place.

True, but if one of them succeeds with the idea you better believe it'll catch on across the long list of video game publishers (and probably other industries as well). 

Though I basically think NFTs are silly based on people's current inflated perceptions of them, in this particular case I think the concept serves a useful purpose (though AFAIK there have been ultra-rare in-game items that didn't need to be tokenized in order to ensure their scarcity).  One of the problems I see happening is that the NFTs turn out to be highly collectible and end up turning kids into gamblers, speculating in the NFT market.  I'm not a gamer so I don't have a sense of how great the risk is, but I do know that loot boxes turned out to be not-so-popular for the same reason.

Should be interesting to see what happens when these things become available.

Oh, there are lots of ways--but to the best of my knowledge the trust list inclusions/exclusions are supposed to be done based on how accurate a member's feedback is.  

Does that mean everyone is going to follow that unwritten rule?  Nope, not at all, and there aren't any consequences I know of if someone chooses not to unless they somehow abuse their DT power and start including shady members or excluding ones based on vendettas or what have you.

Yours is a good question, OP, but the trust system here has a lot of grey areas and is about as imperfect as it gets.  The reality is that DT members can and do include or exclude others based on reasons that have nothing to do with any feedback that was given--philipma1957 is a perfect example of that.  My take on it is that as long as it doesn't create havoc on the forum, let it be.

Nah, I think having the altcoin section is a good thing for the forum itself and its community.  As Pmalek pointed out, it increases traffic to the site (good for the forum), and there are a lot of members who post in both the bitcoin-related sections and the altcoin ones (good for the community).  Getting rid of it would be a bad move all around.  In addition to that, all the bounty hunters would be shit out of luck.  That wouldn't exactly bring a tear to my eye, but it'd just be a bad decision to make for them and for the forum.

Lol.  Just reading your summary of that made me laugh.  South Park blasts pretty much everything, but they do so in an intelligent way, and it sounds like they hit the nail on the head as far as NFTs go.  Too bad the folks who have a case of NFT fever haven't figured out that it's just an example of a typical mania over something that doesn't have real value (like internet stocks back in the 1990s).

I'm not even sure what the term adoption means, much less 100%.  Does adoption mean someone is using bitcoin as a substitute for fiat?  Does it mean they're using it as an investment?  Is it that they just own some for whatever reason?

People are generally not using bitcoin to buy things with, though there are certainly a small number of them doing so.  And I don't think bitcoin is ever going to get to a point where it starts to replace fiat currencies unless something seriously goes wrong with every single fiat currency in the world such that they become worthless.  That could happen to a handful of them simultaneously, but it's doubtful it'll happen globally.  So I'm comfortable ruling that out entirely.

If mass adoption means most people own bitcoin and hold it as an investment (or use it to buy things), I'm guessing the number is somewhere between 1-5%, maybe more.  Most people I know IRL are aware of bitcoin but don't own any, so an estimate of 5/100 people owning it sounds about right to me.  It's hard to tell, because bitcoin doesn't come up in conversation a lot (for me), plus people don't tend to advertise the fact that they own it, so it's difficult to estimate.

The bottom line though is that we're still nowhere near mass adoption, no matter how you define that term.

Yeah, and no doubt that's why their credit rating is so deep in the crapper that their bonds are considered junk.  Still, if nothing else I applaud El Salvador for doing something so bold with bitcoin.  I'll stop the applause immediately if and when any evidence of corruption or broken promises starts to appear--and something tells me that said evidence will pop up eventually. 

Maybe, but I'm wondering what those foreign investors would turn the city into.  It might be worse than whatever it turns out to be with El Salvador running it, though that's yet to be seen.  And I am very curious to see what this "bitcoin city" looks like when it's fully up and running.  I guess if nothing else it'll be a neat social experiment, though the cynical side of me is betting that it won't work nearly as well as planned.

And please note that I'm not spitting on you or the Satodime; I think it's great that you're trying to improve upon an already excellent idea.  And now that I've actually checked the price in USD, I think it's reasonable--definitely not as cheap as a three-pack of Opendimes, but not outrageous by any means. 

I'm not in need of another hardware wallet, but this interests me as a collectible.  I'm going to keep your website bookmarked, and perhaps when I get some dough I might consider buying a Satochip/Satodime.  They are really cool-looking.

Ah, a hot discussion probably not.  I wasn't thinking of major drama threads when I wrote my last post, just general complaints about getting negged for cheating or merit abuse or whatever.  Those certainly never rose to the level of the flame wars that happened between Vod and OgNasty or TECSHARE and Vod or....you know what I mean.

And you're right about the personal vendetta neg threads being more heated (and more extended), because there have been a number of those that I can remember.  aTriz was one such case, and that was quite a while ago but I still remember all the drama that surrounded it (and I just looked, and that one is listed on the first page of this thread).  And actually that wasn't so much vendetta-driven as it was a case of someone being justly tagged--though there was a lot of controversy around the tags if I remember correctly.  I haven't re-read that thread, but I probably will.

OK, good to hear it (again).  Sometimes when members disappear suddenly, I wonder if something bad has happened to them (like TMAN).  And I'll once again acknowledge that you told me before that this wasn't the case with xtraelv.

You probably did.  It's possible that I missed your repy or replies, or I might have just plain old forgotten what you wrote.  However, I won't forget now that you've rapped my knuckles.  In any case, I liked having xtraelv around; he was a good member.

Speaking of faulty memory:

Oh yeah, I remember that!  I don't follow the Chipmixer campaign thread, but now that you mentioned that I do remember at least one instance of that background-checking behavior on the part of rejected/potential applicants. 

As far as I know, Chipmixer is still one of the highest paying campaigns on the forum even with the payment being pegged to USD.  So while it's nowhere as lucrative as it used to be, I'm a little surprised that there isn't any of that sort of drama anymore.

I'm not sure what you meant with that first sentence.  This isn't a thread about newbies and their participation in bounties, but I'm curious about what those bounty aggregator sites are all about. 

You're right, though, about red trust not being a deterrent anymore.  Reputation used to be full of threads asking for negative trust to be removed, but nowadays it seems like bounty managers will take any Jr. Member with a pulse, feedback be damned.  And I'm still not sure why reputation doesn't seem to matter to people all that much anymore, because it certainly used to.  I'm thinking partially it has to do with the emphasis that was placed on it by those members I mentioned who've now left the forum.  They were members who gave out a ton of negative trust and created threads exposing scammers and other undesirables, and we don't see as much of that these days.

I'm not seeing the connection between the boards I have on ignore and my feelings toward one member (cabalism13) who's obviously guilty of misappropriating funds.  As far as red being irresistible...come on.  Are you seriously criticizing me for tagging him?  Why in the world would I not?  And it's not as if I've been on a tagging spree lately, which you can verify by taking a look at my sent feedback. 

I get that you want to give all three members the benefit of the doubt, but with cabalism13 there's no doubt about what he's admitted to doing, and I suspect there's more layers of this stinky onion that have yet to be peeled away.  I haven't tagged the crwth or bL4nkcode yet, because I'm awaiting their responses and it may turn out that they can provide an explanation for what they did and account for the funds that were split amongst them that wouldn't justify a neg.

Also, if you donated to this charity I'd expect you (or anyone else who did) to be at least as "loud" as me.

You're right, but I felt I needed to reply to Lucius, and I also need to state that I don't have a problem with him and never did--and I'm not going to bicker with him about this, and I'm sorry his money was involved in this thing.  Lucius, let's agree that we have two different reactions as to what's going on in this thread and leave it at that, eh?  I'd shake your hand and buy you a beer if I could.

Ugh, sorry to hear about your predicament OP.  

Why did you choose to use a web wallet to store your doge on instead of a software or even a hardware one?  Obviously you see the problem with web wallets: You're at the mercy of whoever is behind the wallet, even if they don't have access to your private keys.  They can implement stuff like this to lock you out, though I'm not sure why they'd do that if they can't steal anything from you.  Do you have control of your private keys with this particular wallet?

I'm actually surprised people still use web wallets.  It seems rare nowadays that someone creates or bumps a thread in this section, so obviously they've lost a lot of the relevance they once had.

If they just made this change, hopefully there's someone still around who can assist you.  There's not much that the community here can do to help you as far as I know, but maybe someone will show up with some ideas.

Precisely.  Being digital, presumably you can create an exact replica of an NFT, though of course you don't have the record of ownership--but who cares about that except for people trying to make mad money from the NFT craze?  

If you have an original Picasso (or a work from any great artist), there's no way to duplicate it--all the paint, the signs of aging, etc.  It's truly unique.  NFTs are unique in their own way, but I'm telling you, people are going to start seeing through that lousy form of uniqueness very rapidly, all at once, and then the market for them is going to crumble.  I don't know when, but it's going to happen.

And why should there be a section for NFTs on this forum?  This is a bitcoin forum that just happens to have an altcoin section, but asking for an NFT-specific one seem to me like going to the Dash forum (or any other altcoin forum) and requesting the same thing.  It's just not appropriate.

There's a man who knows what he's talking about.