I hate to even write this, but I'm almost ready to start a betting pool as to whether something shady went down, and I'd take the side that something indeed did.  You're being very optimistic in the face of evidence being presented that a pool of donation money was split up between three members for some reason and possibly used to speculate with altcoins on Binance, which is exactly what you're doing when you deposit funds on an exchange to stake something.  Suppose the value of those coins plummets.  How do you think the donators would feel about that?  

This is a lot of money we're talking about, and given everything that's been presented--along with yahoo62278's own concern that he expressed in his conversation with cabalism13--I seriously think temptation got the best of one or more of this trio.  I don't know any of them personally, though I'm very familiar with their usernames and they've all got positive reputations.  That doesn't mean someone can't be corrupted by temptation.  

Remember Master-P?

Is this even a topic for Meta?  These seem like questions that keep getting asked over and over in sections like Bitcoin Discussion (and probably B&H), especially the "This or That?" kind of stuff.  And I think I've written about my path to becoming a member of bitcointalk at least three times since I've been here, so I'm going to skip it. 

OP, you might want to dig a little deeper into Meta or some other sections and read about the questions you've asked of the community here.  I'm not telling you to shut up and stop posting, but I think you'd find some interesting reading if you go back a few years in some of the better sections here.  In fact, I'd recommend that to anyone who hasn't done so; bitcointalk has changed a lot since its inception, and looking at the old threads and posts is fascinating stuff.

And I'd say most people here for money, not knowledge, but it's not a two-choice question anyway.  Some people are here just to interact with other members, some are here to troll.  If you think of things in black-and-white terms without considering all the possibilities, you're not using your noggin.

This sounds like a complete clusterfuck if you want my honest opinion.  First of all, there should have been plans in place for what was to be done with the donated funds before receiving any donations, and that thread you linked to is over a year and half after the charity fund was started--but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, cabalism13 is basically asking whether the donations should be played with by converting BTC-->whatever and trying to time the market.  That's tantamount to gambling with other people's kind gestures, and that isn't right.

If funds were really transferred to Binance in order to stake coins, that's another colossal fuckup IMO.  I don't know if that happened or not, but it does appear there's evidence of it.  That's another example of gambling with charity funds, and that shouldn't be done.  And why would the funds be split up?  I don't get that part at all.

In other words, to the last part of you post above, I'd say yahoo62278 is on the edge of making some serious accusations--I hope I'm wrong, but this whole thing smells kinda funny to me.

Seriously--and once people wake up and realize that NFTs are complete garbage and a fad and are worthless digital collectibles that are nowhere near as valuable as real art that artists painted on a real canvas the market for these things is going to crash--and crash hard.

I'm telling you, the emperor has no clothes on.  NFT lovers can't see that fact, but nevertheless it is true.  It's very easy to get blinded by hype, yet it happens to people repeatedly.

As to having a dedicated subsection:
1) It's been discussed before, as noted by Lafu.  
2) They're tokens, as noted by Lafu.  
3) ICOs, Defi, and some other crypto hot topics of the moment never got subsections of their own, so don't hold your breath for NFTs getting one.

Now you can lock the thread, OP.

Ah, as usual I didn't read the whole thread before posting, and you listed some of the crypto stuff I'd forgotten about--but that's exactly what I'm talking about.  NFTs are the movie of the week as far as I'm concerned, and they'll be forgotten in a year or less.  Maybe more if people remain insane.

I'm reluctant to jump on the negative trust bandwagon based on a single complaint by you, and I'm still reluctant even with what you wrote above--and I'm not convinced yet that 4444sport is actually AdkinsBET, because I haven't seen any hard evidence, only similarities between the two (though if I had to guess, I'd have to say they're one and the same just based on the fact that I've seen that pattern of behavior before with scamming sites).  Should there be any more complaints about these guys, I'll be happy to support the flag and give them a red paint job.

Was there any communication between younger41 and 4444sport about the delay of his funds being returned or did they completely ignore him?

That's a secondary problem, IMO, but a real one.  Unfortunately scams have always been tolerated here by Theymos (and by extension, the moderators).  It'd be great if self-moderated threads weren't allowed in the gambling section, but I wouldn't get my hopes up about that being changed.  I think they're not allowed in the Auctions and/or Currency Exchange section(s), so it is kind of odd that a scammer could moderate his own thread in any section that allows an ANN.

That's an odd thread.  They don't say when the contest is going to end or when the winner will be paid or even if the winner will be announced (which they haven't been so far).  That does add to the growing pile of evidence in my head that this outfit is a scammy one.

Do you have evidence of that?  Did you start a scam accusation thread?  If you do, please post it.  I'm itching to neg these guys, and one more claim of nonpayment will put me over the edge.

Oh, I think it's entirely appropriate to crib about how the forum is.  It's a two-way street, isn't it?  Without the community there would be no forum, and without the forum there would be no community.  In addition to that, there is a DT list which presumably is a group of members whose trust and perhaps even opinions are valued by Theymos and the community, so shouldn't they have at least a little input as to changes they think should be made?  Hell, I think even non-DT members ought to have a say--and to be heard.

Yeah, I can't stand when a thread starts like this, with a claim that a pronouncement was made by someone and no reference links are provided.  It's hard to comment on something that I don't really know is true.

But let's assume the IMF said what it said for the purposes of my post.  I don't know how much developing countries and their citizenry value their currency, and I assume it depends very much on which country we're talking about.  If it was a country like Venezuela, then I'd say crypto might pose a threat to their fiat currency, but even during their hyperinflationary crisis I didn't hear tons of credible stories of how bitcoin or any of the altcoins were taking over; I think Venezuelans used the US dollar as a substitute currency.

And this just isn't true:

Bitcoin has been around since 2009, and most people still don't own any--and pretty much everyone uses the internet.  So that should tell you with no ambiguity that bitcoin hasn't gained any dominance over traditional payment methods.  A lot of people shop on Amazon and related retailers online, and what do people have to pay with?  Their credit or debit cards, not bitcoin.  Bitcoin isn't even close to "taking over the internet for online transaction(s)".

Man, that part I bolded above really sounds like the internet stock boom of the 1990s, and if you weren't there you never got to experience what a true bubble is like (unless you participated in one since then, but the 90s one was a real bubble).  But it isn't surprising that investors are "now looking at fundamentals" or however this article put it, because that's what they always come back to when the stock market gets red hot and people aren't thinking straight about what they're buying.

Eh...I'm not sure about that, and I've yet to see a study about how bitcoin correlates with the stock market in general, much less with a handful of Chinese stocks.  Bitcoin has dipped in the past few days and is down from its ATH, but I really don't think it has anything to do with these stocks being delisted.

LOL.  Who would do such a thing?

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or what, but bitcoin isn't a bubble, but that's not to say that it isn't or hasn't ever been in one.  Assets are never defined by them being a bubble, but rather are described as being in one at any given time--and I'd say that bitcoin has experienced at least one since its inception (the lead-up to December 2017).  Right now I'm pretty sure it's not in bubble territory, since its price trajectory hasn't been consistently upward as it has been in previous years.

Sure.  If you could get anyone to believe the data, which is highly unlikely.  Anyone with a critical eye could see that bitcoin was in a bubble in November 2017, but you wouldn't think any such people existed based on the comments here during that period.  People were vehemently arguing that bitcoin was not in a bubble, that it was headed to $50k, $100k, you name it.  And that's the thing about bubbles; they turn speculators' minds to mush, and normally rational people are unwilling to objectively evaluate any data that says their investment of choice is waaay overvalued.

Pfft.  Even the biggest corporations with departments devoted to security can't seem to keep breaches from happening, so I have little faith that a company like Ledger would be able to be sure data leaks won't happen again.  With this new service, they've probably just painted a big red target on their backs for hackers.

I've never used a crypto debit card, but I don't see how anyone (at least in the US or any country with strict banking laws) could use one without going through some kind of KYC process.  The government just wouldn't allow it, and Ledger sure as hell isn't going to run afoul of any government's regulations.

Well it does have to do with Ledger--and by extension, their wallet, though I didn't know you'd already posted a thread on it in the Services section.  I've got that one back on ignore, so thanks for linking to it.

I've never been interested in having a crypto debit card, and I sure as hell would not want one linked to a Ledger wallet.  That would be giving up a significant amount of privacy, no?  And man, as far as getting my paycheck in bitcoin goes, I've written about that many times in threads specifically about that.  The bottom line is that everything I buy with my pay in real life goes to buy things I can't easily obtain with bitcoin (like gas, rent, utilities, etc.), and along with the fact that bitcoin's volatility is still sky-high there's no way I'd be taking advantage of that particular service.

I respect Ledger for wanting to offer more services and expand their business, but I'm not sure how many people are using the services they've already started providing (or those offered by the companies they've partnered with).

I wouldn't put too much faith in bitcoin's anonymity, because if any government decided they wanted to seize their citizens' coins, I'd imagine they'd find a way to trace who owns what (at least for a lot of people, and especially those who use exchanges like Coinbase).  Hopefully it'll never come to that, because OP is indeed correct that the gold confiscation that happened shows you how much power the government has.  I mean, hey....they make the laws, and it would just take the stroke of a pen to make us all outlaws.

You live in France if I'm not mistaken, so I don't know how it is over there with government and people's faith in it, but here in the US I'd say there are tons of people who don't trust our government--and they're right not to.  There are so many examples of politicians and other government workers perpetrating all sorts of misdeeds (in addition to all the bullshit policies that have been enacted) that I don't understand how anyone could trust them.

I don't think I was ever taught about the gold seizure of 1933 when I was a kid in school.  Those are the types of things that don't make it into standard textbooks of American history unfortunately.  Hell, I'd much prefer that subjects like that weren't even taught in grammar and high schools in the US.  What's the point of memorizing all of the US presidents, anyway?

That's where the Coming Soon^TM on the Youtube channel comes from (I think).  At this point it's just a running gag that's not all that funny, because I've been hearing about that software for what must be years now.  I know Theymos has a lot of money and resources at his disposal, so I'm pretty sure he could get the ball rolling if he really wanted to.

But as I've written quite a few times before, I'm happy with the design of the forum as it is and it functions well for what it is, which is a discussion forum without any frills.  I happen to agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sentiment, so that New Forum Software^{Coming Soon} can stay on the shelf indefinitely for all I care.  

If I were a recent donor hoping to get a new version of bitcointalk released, I might be a little peeved, but all of those early donors weren't donating bitcoin for that purpose (as far as I know).

I'm not sure either Lauda or TMAN left the forum because of that reason; TMAN just kind of disappeared, and Lauda, well....who knows?  But I agree that nutildah is an asset to the forum, and I'd hate to lose him.  However, this was just a ban for a week, and given that nutildah kept ignoring the mods about his thread being in the wrong section (regardless of anyone's argument about whether that interpretation is correct), it's fair.  Bruno was temp banned a while back for consecuposting if I'm not mistaken, and he was certainly a valuable member of the community.  That tells me that very few members (I hate to say nobody) are above the rules.

I think nutildah did get a bit of special consideration here, as he was warned multiple times before he got temp-banned.  Other members who don't have a reputation, or who are shitposters, or who have negative trust might have been banned much sooner.  I can't say that's 100% true of course, but I don't think the mods were quick with the ban hammer as far as nutildah goes.

Yep, and I also understand it from both sides, which makes it hard for me to place blame in this situation.  Fortunately all nutildah got was a 7-day ban, and hopefully that'll give him some time to cool off--and I also hope he doesn't return with a grudge.

And you should--at least on forums that would have anything to do with betting, crypto, or have members who'd be interested in a site like 1xbit.com.  Unfortunately, everyone here is well aware that they're scammy as hell.  You're probably not going to return, but if you do, you ought to search in the Scam Accusation section for "1xbit" and you'll see all their victims prior to them scamming you.  Wish you'd done a thorough due diligence check on them before placing your first bet, because if you had I have no doubt you'd have come across a few threads from bitcointalk.

Any amount scammed stings, but it looks like you were betting relatively small amounts.  There's probably no comfort in that, but I think other people have gotten ripped off for much more than you did.  So yeah, spread the word that 1xbit is to be avoided like the bubonic plague, syphilis, rabid bats, and radioactive cockroaches.  I know you know what I mean.

I haven't done a Google search on them lately, but last time I did the first page of results didn't show any real red flags.  I'm not sure how that can be changed; I'd be willing to bet that 1xbitch is using some kind of SEO service (or doing it themselves) to keep all the bad stuff at the bottom of searches.

Six, seven months?  It's not that far away, though the weather in my area would suggest differently.  And given that we're talking about the government, which moves slower than ice-cold molasses, it's almost the blink of an eye.

That's definitely true--and I don't expect the US government to let itself go bankrupt and thus become the laughingstock of the world.  There are so many tricks those idiots in Washington can pull in order to avert that possibility, though I hope they don't plan on starting a world war or something like that.  I'm not sure how much of a warmonger Joe Biden is, because he seems to be more like the "Uncle Joe" type, who likes to give away money and so forth, but that doesn't mean he isn't as devious as any other US politician.  You'd kind of have to be to have survived as long as he has in US politics, you know?

That was one of my first thoughts, though it does make me wonder why a pronouncement like this would even be made if the US wasn't in trouble and could count on an easy solution like printing more money--which is part of what got us into this situation in the first place.  All the stimulus checks and other forms of free money that the Federal and state government have been giving out might have stimulated the economy, but just look at where inflation is at the moment.  It makes me wonder who the hell is monitoring all of this and if they need a new pair of glasses.

Jesus....who knows?  It could be any of them, though I'd be betraying my ignorance about the origins of some of the altcoins out there if I were to guess--Ripple is the first one that comes to mind, followed by Tether.

By the way, here and there for the last few years I've been posting my thoughts about whence bitcoin was suddenly unleashed upon the world, and government agencies have been in my mind whenever I've posted about that.  It just seems extremely unbelievable that a human being could fly so far under the radar while creating something as huge as bitcoin that no one, not even any of the law enforcement or intelligence agencies around the world have been able to identify him.  And you bet there would be a lot of interest in doing so, even if it was only from the IRS.

The alternatives are that 1) Satoshi isn't a single person, but someone working for a government (probably the US), or 2) The government has already gotten to whoever Satoshi is and has recruited him for whatever cryptography projects they could buy him off for.  I suppose there are other alternatives, but those seem the most likely to me.  Granted, I wasn't around in the early days and didn't see Satoshi's posts or know any of the original people involved, so my perspective is completely skewed--and obviously I know I could be wrong about my theories.

But don't any of you think it's weird that Satoshi apparently couldn't be traced, that he vanished without a trace while still leaving what's presumably a digital trail behind that should lead investigators to him?  Oh, by the way Hydrogen: I'm not surprised whatsoever that the CIA is involved with cryptocurrency. 

Huh.  I didn't know Gen Zs were strictly US citizens.  Is that even true?

And what's up with that second statement about diversity?  It's really got nothing to do with the poll, and the injection of identity politics into a financial article really, really seems icky to me.  Is there nothing in the media nowadays that isn't laced with this crap?

Good; that means that as they grow older they're probably likely to become anti-government and more skeptical about the things they were brainwashed with as youths.  At least I hope that's the case, because if it isn't we're in some serious trouble.

Now here's the thing about those Gen Zs thinking they can become millionaires by dabbling in crypto:  Some of them really are getting extremely wealthy by taking those risks the article talked about and investing in not only dogecoin but all sorts of altcoins and experimenting with oddball stuff like NFTs and such.  So it's not as if they're out of their minds by believing in crypto as a cure for their financial woes, because when doge hit its ATH you know a bunch of people had to have just gotten rich.

One thing I'm hoping for is that when the Gen Zs grow up and become our future politicians, they retain their fondness for cryptocurrency and don't try to regulate it to death (if that hasn't happened by the time the new generation gets elected to positions of power).  I also think it's a great thing that youngsters have such a positive view about crypto.  I don't understand that whole "pro-government" stance that I quoted above (if it's true), because part of the reason bitcoin is so valuable is because of all the damage governments have done to fiat currency and the world economy in general.

Jesus, all of these similar scam sites, and the EvoMiners site is still up after all these months!  Are they still using the original site to pull off these scams or what? 

Looking at their page, anyone would think they're completely legitimate.  They've got an address and phone number displayed--has anyone tried to call them or has anyone looked into who the resident is at La Rue le Gros, St. Saviour, Jersey, JE2 7QP, United Kingdom (the address on their site)?

One thing that definitely sticks out like a scammer's sore thumb is this:



Maybe it's commonplace for reviews like that to have what look like stock photos attached to them, but headshots like that look like they belong in the ANN thread of an ICO scam under the "team" section.  Anyway, I just stumbled upon this thread and I'm sorry you all got scammed by these dirtbags.  I can't blame anyone for falling for it, because on its face it totally looks like a legitimate business.  Yikes.

Since there's already an open scam accusation against these guys (which you linked to yourself), is this thread necessary?

As far as 4444sport's "attitude" goes, I'd say if they're deleting posts made by people who are making legitimate complaints about withdrawal delays and whatnot, that doesn't speak well for them.  That's exactly what you'd expect a scam site to do, and it's happened many times before. 

I'm not a gambler, so I'd never heard of 4444sport or even AdkinsBET before (though the latter does ring a bell in my head).  It sounds like they could be under the same management/ownership.  If that's true, then I'd say people ought to steer clear of them based on the trust page of the AdkinsBET account.  There are so many crypto casinos out there that aren't scams, so why would someone choose to go with a new, unproven, and possibly scammy one?

Same here, and with the exception of a handful of members, I think we're a dying breed on the forum.  Fortunately there have been some new members that, regardless of their motivation for being here, have been excellent contributors to bitcointalk.  So even if someone is here strictly for the money, that doesn't mean they fall into the typical bounty-hunting, shitposter, zero-value class.

I've grown attached to this forum over the years, so there's no way I'd give it up just because signature campaigns went away--which doesn't seem to be an option in Theymos's mind in any case.  But I bet there would be a massive efflux of members if that happened, and that makes me wonder what would happen to the merit system and my role as a merit source.  There wouldn't be any incentive for members to rank up aside from status, which means there probably wouldn't be any threads about how to earn merits or even as much general interest in doing so.

And that's just one consideration; I think this place would look completely different if campaigns and bounties were suddenly outlawed.  It was an active forum prior to the first campaign, but I think that was due to bitcoin being a very new thing.  Now that it's matured quite a bit and given the fact that many members are here just to participate in bounties/campaigns, I'd expect bitcointalk to become almost a ghost town.  Hopefully that won't be tested anytime soon.

Don't know if you're paranoid or not (since I don't know you IRL), but you're not in a parallel universe that I know of.  Yes, this has been discussed before but I think it's been at least 5 months since we had a thread like this.  Maybe a little less; I lose track of time when it comes to this forum.