Hm...


You were saying?

I've always thought of myself as a protractor.

It's implied.


If you're trying to say that this is without intent then that's fine. But it also means that I can't take anything you say seriously.

If that is the case, then correspondence will subsequently cease.

---

Stop double-posting.

After I answer your questions, you resort to ad-hominem snarky remarks. Why even bother? Is this your answer to the cognitive dissonance?

That's the point. I don't want a ransom. I don't want any payment.

---

Don't double-post.

See: the Ryland case.

There should be many more but this is the one that I initiated and remember most-well.

Forum treasurer, account compromised, entered signature campaign.

---

It's survivor bias. Of course you'll see more anchovies than whales in the same pond.

Here's the difference: a ransom is a subset of a payment only when it is fulfilled and it is a subset of an invoice when it is not.

I have not asked anything of you before the thread's creation.

Here are my demands:

Give me an exclusive interview with the real Satoshi Nakamoto, Craig Wright.
Create a principled paper on why Bitcoin: Satoshi's Vision (the true Bitcoin!) should switch to 2GB blocks despite not needing a tenth of the maximum size.
Access satoshi's bitcoin addresses and send 1 million bitcoins to the 1BitcoinEater address.

---

That should handle it.

Not sure what wallet you're using but if you can't customize fees outside of "recommended" ranges, I'd switch immediately. There's no reason you should be paying more than $0.50 for a transaction.

That would be an incorrect usage of the report system. Unlike others, I have respect for the staff and I do not wish to add more to their already-high workload.

Note that I asked for "AN EXAMPLE" meaning "ONE EXAMPLE" rather "THAN" all of the "POSSIBLE" cases "THAT" exist on the "FORUM"

You asked for systems. I responded accordingly.

All you're doing is just changing the title, not the definition. If we tautologically redefine the words 'admin' and 'moderator' to what the DT1 title currently handles then we essentially have what you want.

Surface-level reviews will do more harm than higher workloads. When we're talking about a trust system, I don't think it's very pragmatic to skim over the details.

Big capitalized words don't make me want to read it. They have the opposite effect on your post. This is amplified by an order of magnitude when you bold it. Now, if you were to color it blue... that would certainly be an eyesore.

---

Let's start with this statement.

You can appeal. In Reputation. And there have been instances in which DT members have disagreed with one another and countered the rating. Example: me, on multiple occasions.

Show me an example of such a case where the red-trusted member was in the right.

I agree. There exist many scammers frolicking across the forum.

It's called DT1.

It's called Reputation.

And when we start getting threads of "my appeal was rejected??!?!?!" and false positives/negatives?

Unfortunately the reality is that for a significant chunk of negative feedback, looking over the evidence will take an equally significant amount of time. I would know: I had to pore over a few hundred of Lauda's sent feedback.

theymos has blacklist power.

I disagree with the idea of giving out negatives for contrasting beliefs. I'm assuming that's what you're describing: am I correct?

If you can elaborate on your ideas then I would be glad to discuss the ramifications and consequential effects of your tweaks. I enjoy playing devil's advocate in all cases and believe that no idea begins in its final state: it must be polished thoroughly.

I can agree with that. Sometimes, potentially compromised accounts or incredibly likely scams (that have yet to be proven) should be given an initial block as to safeguard the general public from malicious entities.

You want double enforcement on the trust system? Moderators, enforcing DT members, enforcing all members?

Or perhaps would you like every feedback to be peer-reviewed before it is published, giving time for scammers to proliferate and the opportunity for the system to be spammed?

Color me confused. Which is it, for lot 2?

Surely it must have been an error due to the placement order of the lots in the former quote, aye?

YoBit has their own ponzi-like pump & dump programmes.

Do you want to be associated with that?

Which ones?

Don't leave it at that, come on! We need some more information to be riled up and targets to be placed upon users that are part of the Cult of Bitcointalk!

Blanket statements can appear to have merit until you push down and find nothing but air.

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Red trust should not be given to anyone on the basis of their post quality (poor or not).

---

Considering the fact that you don't have a signature, I'm going to assume banned...

Interesting, considering your claims that you weren't spamming.

Lot 1 @ 0.001 BTC

Unaware of these Killyou Koinz... need a ManzCoin Lit

Read my post again and don't insert your preconceived ideas of what I'm trying to say.

"I'm waiting to see threads that provide concrete evidence right-away rather than saying they have some thereof."

---

Is it not better to begin an accusational thread with that of the substantiated evidence?

What has more impact and sounds more reliable?

"We have evidence but we're not showing it right now."
"We have evidence and here it is:"

I actually took my time on certain posts. The hour went by quicker than I thought: the experiential time felt like 20 minutes.

---

The waittime caps at 4 seconds. That would mean a maximum of 900 posts/hr, if we're neglecting connection times.

---

The strategy that I picked:

1) Open Economics, Speculation, Gambling discussion and Bitcoin Discussion.

2) Open all of the last-post links in a new tab.

3) Write on easy threads. Respond if it helps in the ease of the post. Otherwise make some random generic shit up.