Shame. He was pretty much the only "new" campaign manager who came here and was doing what he should have been by checking and denying participants due to quality, but something didn't seem right because of that because it's such an anomaly. I even thought about leaving him positive trust because of it but glad I didn't now.

I think we should probably be more weary of 'new' campaign managers here because they're often trusted with a lot of money and I'm sure many of them will just be building up for some long con or siphon off money to their alts (as some have already been caught doing).

As per the title I find it highly probable that rezwalker bought merit from Embroiderymate.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1302322 rezwalker

Merit summary for rezwalker
Merit: 3

Sent in the last 120 days
Received in the last 120 days
July 21, 2018, 11:09:42 AM: 1 from Embroiderymate for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)
July 21, 2018, 11:09:23 AM: 2 from Embroiderymate for Re: where to sell tokens?

Shitposts he was merited for:

One merit :


Two:


Embroiderymate has negative trust for trying to sell merit (thread is removed though):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=709833

No it doesn't. It means I don't trust you. When a previous ponzi promoter tries to get his hands on $100k I think that is pretty alarming and I don't trust that behaviour. Had you of been sent that sort of money I think it's highly probable you would have just ran off with it.


So? That doesn't invalidate the act and wipe it from history.

People seem to think that this forum is a free-for-all and anything goes and because it's a forum about bitcoin that means there's no rules because of decentralisation. Bitcoin has rules. So does this forum. We don't have to have a list of thousands of them written like a legal document but we need at least some to keep some basic order and functionality, but this forum is a pretty good example of what happens when you don't have many rules or enforce the ones you do have as people are quick to exploit that when they realise they can get away with certain things.

Automatically hiding every other one except the one you're directly quoting would be helpful. The quotes should be collapsible, like they are on some other forums and you can toggle them to see the full quote or not. I don't think it's a huge issue though but people should probably be urged to just quote the relevant part(s) (though most are probably too lazy to do that in the first place). As far as I recall and last time theymos commented on this he said quoting on the new forum software would be similar to how 4chan does it.

The last straw for you is their inability to spell words right? I think we should be punishing campaign managers, but not because of their illiteracy.


This forum has rules. So does bitcoin. If you come here and spam rubbish or copy and paste then you get banned. The same should be applied to those who are paying them to do this in the first place and if we don't 'regulate' campaigns then nothing will change here as they will continue to be lazy and pay for any old spam. The forum is such a shitshow because we've done little to nothing about spam coming from campaigns. Had we done something about it years ago instead of just letting it breed then the forum wouldn't be such the eyesore it is now.

Most of your posts seem to be copy and pastes.



If you'd have read the rules you'd know what not to do.

Read his posts in this thread. That's why he plagiarises. When you can't speak English what do we expect them to do?

The feedback doesn't mean he can't be trusted to send merits, and others may even disagree with the feedback. Admittedly no scam was committed, though he did try to escrow a deal for over $100k and has promoted ponzis in the past and for me that's untrustworthy behaviour and I think there would have been a very high chance of him running away with the money if he ever secured it and that's why I left the feedback. Others, including theymos, may disagree. I haven't looked into his merit history so I can't say whether he would be a good choice or not, but merely having negative (even from me) shouldn't 100% exude you from ever being a merit source, especially if you're an active member and are regularly giving out accurate merit for noteworthy posts. I'm sure theymos is intelligent and impartial enough to take all the available evidence and make up his own mind whether he should be a merit source or not and it's only him that gets to decide who is made one or not currently.

It kind of is cruel and certainly redundant either way. That message should be removed or at least edited. Perhaps listing a few of the most common bans would be more beneficial so people don't waste time creating another account in Meta or mailing the void of an unmonitored email address. I wonder how long someone has kept messaging it waiting for a response before they just gave up.


It's not as sad as the fact that people come here and think it's acceptable to copy and paste other's content.

It has always been normalised here. If we allow it then why wouldn't people do it? There's some serious money to be made from account farming and high-ranked accounts are worth more than ever right now especially when Hero and Legendaries are going to become very, very rare to achieve with the merit requirements. Heck, a Member account probably commands quite a bit of money now as ten merit is very difficult to get for a shitposter. The only way we can really stop or at least severely dent this activity and business is if we allow people to buy the benefits of the ranks via more donator titles (like Silver and Gold etc). I think this is something we should seriosuly look at doing because it will severely curb the account selling/farming/hacking market and stop a lot of people from getting scammed (there's probably more people scamming trying to sell non-existent accounts they don't even have as opposed to genuine sales right now), so let people buy the benefits of the ranks safely from the forum instead of that money going to some scumbag account farmer/hacker/scammer and it's then win-win for everyone (apart from the farmer/hacker/scammers).

I'm sure they do, but that one was bullshit because they started the sentences with the same thing and just regurgitated the same post but reworded slightly, so they all just belonged to one person who got a bit ahead of himself. If there already isn't some sort of offices set up to farm bounties then I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they actually will be, but we're already seeing proof of it in a small scale at least with the picture you were sent of the group of people posting away. These things will naturally grow and expand like any business or industry especially when the money is too good and easy to earn. The merit system has made things a little bit more difficult for them as you now can't just create as many accounts as you want and rise them through the ranks merely over time, but they're still going to find ways around it like buying merit and trading it between themselves etc and we've already seen multiple cases of that as well.  Punishing signature campaigns obviously needs to be the next step because trash posters just shouldn't be getting paid in the first place and that's the source of the issue here.

Yes you did. You literally asked someone to send you over $100k and that's what you got the negative feedback for. There is no way to know what you would have done with that money had you been sent it but I think the chances of you just running off with it were very high. That sort of money could make even an honest man turn into a scammer and people will run off with much less. Of course you could have had every intention of safely holding the money and returning it when asked but that's something we'll never know. The feedback doesn't say you're a scammer but to trade with caution and lists the reasons why I find you untrustworthy, but you can't do anything about how others interpret that other than telling them to actually read the feedback and that no money was ever actually scammed.

Don't forget the time someone had their whole entire "office" accounts banned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1912475.0

That's why they all shared the same IP and obviously wasn't someone just writing the same sentence just reworded slightly account after account page after page on two hundred accounts.

And my personal favourite is the husband and wife duo who are so in love they virtually have to hold hands on the forum and post back-to-back because they can't bare to not be side by side:


And not that we needed to prove that it was bullshit, but:

Removing signatures will stop signature spam, which is probably 99% of the spam here. I wouldn't be against removing signatures, but I don't think it's going to happen. If we were going to remove signatures though then I don't think we should do it for everyone as that's unfair to those who have actually contributed something here and it's the spammers who will leave as soon as that happens and will have then ruined it for everyone else. Remove signatures from everyone and require a ridiculous amount of earned merit before you can get one. That seems more fair. You could also let people purchase more donator ranks in addition which get you the benefits of signatures, but I would only be for that if they were sufficiently expensive, so either earn your merit or cough up for a signature. Or go away. Either way you can still post as normal so nobody is effected from that.


You simply need to clamp down on the people who are paying people to spam as that's the cause of the issue. If a user signs up here and spams then they get a ban. If these people who keep getting banned are on the same campaign then that campaign should get the ban. Once ICOs start getting banned from activities here they'll soon change their ways because this forum is too valuable to them. They get away with it at the moment because there's no repercussions for them doing a lousy job so they're not magically going to change because that's far too much work for them that they just don't need to do right now.

What makes you think it's about the money for him? Why wouldn't he want another opportunity to beat him? Connor has a slim chance of actually winning against him unless he gets lucky. There's obviously some real bad blood between these two now, or at least for Khabib. McGregor just says things to be inflammatory to try get inside your head and it's a good tactic and often works because it can give you an advantage and can often make your opponent lose their cool, and that's what happened when Khabib did a Cantona and jumped into the audience. Apparently Conor's trainer was taunting him during and after the fight making racial and religious slurs so that's why he did what he did. I'd like to see a rematch because the badblood might make for a more explosive fight now and who else are those guys going to fight?

Locking a spam thread isn't really an urgent report. We have to actually go through the thread and make sure it has actually served its purpose. Sometimes I leave the reports because it's arguable about what a spam thread is. Sometimes the original post can be well written and well thought out, but if spammers can just answer the question in the title without reading the thread then it can quickly become unusable, but also sometimes people can still be making intelligent posts in there. This is why I think we should be cracking down on campaigns that pay for this crap rather than playing cat and mouse and locking good threads that have just turned to drivel because of spammers that are being paid for low quality contributions. Until that changes we're just wasting time and energy really.


You can compile as many lists as you want but it's futile if theymos isn't going to take any notice of it and the problem here is theymos just isn't acting on these things.

No. I don't believe anyone should be locked up for life other than murderers, and especially not for merely running a dark net market (and if that's all we're arguing about here). I think there's a double standard in that he got a harsher punishment than some of the actual drug dealers and traffickers who used the site. I don't really think there's anything morally wrong with drug dealing, as long as you are A) Not forcing anyone to do drugs or are pushing harder drugs on someone, and B) don't commit acts of violence due to your business, but obviously the government doesn't agree with that and their punishments are harsh for it and everyone knows that and unless the laws change then the harsh punishments won't either. I guess there's been some progress in the States with the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis, so maybe that will lead to relaxed laws on other 'lighter' drugs but only time will tell. The war on drugs is an obviously failure so they probably should just give up and let people buy drugs from darknet markets but that's probably too scary a thought for the average person or politician, but regardless of what they do people are always going to be buying and selling drugs regardless of the punishments or consequences and the sooner they accept that the better in my opinion.

I think he probably just hasn't edited it yet.

This probably still applies though if you feel you fall under that:

As with any merit giving people should just take it on a case by case basis, but I don't think we should stop giving them out in certain sections, but you can certainly stop giving them for certain types of posts. People either complaining or just 'agreeing' that the merit system is good probably shouldn't get them. If people stopped meriting posts in here then I'd probably have 98% less merits, but things like boycotts only ever work if everyone (or a significant) percentage of people are involved. There'll always be one or two users (or scabs) that make it ineffective and it's impossible to get everyone on board.


This is why I think the merit requirement should be higher and put up to ten. People would probably actually be more liberal with their merit giving then and giving one out for an entertaining post should be ok, but when one merit is all somebody needs to be able to post it's dicey. One merit is far too easy to get and is too prone to abuse so I personally think we should keep the one merit to become a Junior but remove their signatures and you can only get one when you achieve ten merit and become a Member.