Trust is not moderated, but trust spam with no intentions other than spamming is forbidden:

What's the best way to report this kind of spam? I want to report trust spam left by Moseas79 on my profile:
19 trust left, 81 lines each. Total: 1,539 lines of fake trust  
2,430 lines of trust spam now

Edit:
Also Buzzlieve1992, who left trust spam to other users (and probably to me too very soon as I'm leaving negative trust to him now).

---

Also, I think there should be some limits regarding trust, something like for example:

• Not more than 1 trust left on an account per account and IP per day (I know this can be fouled, but it could help a little at least). At the moment it seems newbies have much more limits on posts and PMs than on leaving trust
• Not more than 300 chars per feedback at most. Not more than 5 new lines. If more is required, a post on Reputation can be opened and linked on the reference

Trust should be informative and readable, not intrusive.
While less annoying than Moseas79, several other users intentionally add extra blank lines or leave spammy "previous versions" of left trust with repeated information with the sole intention of making it longer and use more real estate, like TheButterZone or Engg.Chaks did on my profile.

You should maybe try twitter too. I got some luck once with a ticket publicly replying just after they twitted something.
My addresses for tips are on my profile. Thanks and good luck

You need to understand that the address 1AzK8xUa12UmgVKdeuQTq5KbedYBYqJ6o8 is not yours. It's just your deposit address but it belongs to Poloniex.
The same way several of your withdrawals (for example this one) weren't sent from that address, the fact there's a transaction sent from there doesn't mean there was a withdrawal from your account.
So it doesn't make sense to analyze the blockchain in your case.

If your total balance is missing those 2 BTC and there are no withdrawals then your only option is to contact them so they fix their mistake.
Just double check it's really missing.

This shouldn't be necessary as escrow should always be used:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133931.0

However, I've seen lately a lot of threads where newbies (or any user without strong trust *) post auto-buy links on self-moderated or locked threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2900503.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3034331.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2864178.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3023479.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2176395.0
Several users have been scammed that way.

Never buy using those links. Always ask for a trusted member to act as escrow.
If the sellers refuse or ignore your request, please post here or PM me to add red trust to them.

---

* Register to see the seller's trust before making any deal. Bitcointalk has a complex trust system. While it's not perfect, it's far better than nothing.
If you are not registered you won't be able to see this trust and won't see what users are tagged as scammers, as shown in the image below:



Do register or login before browsing this Marketplace and be careful when dealing with anyone, even if not tagged as scammer.

---

I will be leaving trust flags (info) to users who don't have reputation here and post locked or self-moderated threads on the marketplace, especially if posting auto-buy links. It's almost certain those threads are created with the sole purpose of scamming. I recommend others to use this thread as reference when flagging users for the same reason.

That's definitely misleading and untrustworthy. Tagged.
But I agree. Something else should be done, at least banning.

Indeed. There isn't any improvement regarding saving bandwidth. The target of this userscript is to improve usability instead.
If you want to save bandwidth (at the cost of the hovering not working so smoothly) just comment or remove the 2 lines below "// Preload full image"


I'll probably add a boolean constant for that purpose on the next version.

So you're trying to trick someone into selling 200 bitcoin cash (worth $240k+) or 3000 litecoin cash ($6k+), among other forks for $50+?
Or are you buying addresses with all those forks and other coins (clams and others) claimed?

Lately I've been learning/playing with userscript (shortening URLs, modified grue's merit script) so here's my latest addition.

This userscript uses rsz.io as a proxy for images instead of the native ip.bitcointalk.org which can take several seconds to load and has some limitations.
Additionally, big images are reduced to improve readability of threads. By default the max width is 600px and the max height is 400px, but that can be easily modified on the script.
When hovering the reduced image the full version will be shown.

Reduced images load almost instantly and full resolution images are preloaded so the hovering works as smoothly as possible.
As a result everything loads much faster and threads with several images are easier to read.

For example, this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1800909.0
is converted to this:


Here's a more extreme example where you can test this script:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3012663.msg31190942#msg31190942

---

To install this script get Tampermonkey on Chrome, Greasemonkey on Firefox, or Violentmonkey on Opera (Read more here: https://openuserjs.org/about/Userscript-Beginners-HOWTO) and then install this:
https://openuserjs.org/scripts/EcuaMobi/Bitcointalk_images

If you want to change the max size for images, just open the code of the script after installing it and update MAX_WIDTH and/or MAX_HEIGHT

Does this rule apply to Currency exchange only?

Or does it apply to every subcategory of Marketplace? I really think it should, or there should be a limit, even if it's not just 1. Let me explain my point this way:



At least users should be allowed to bump every 24h only one of their threads and link all the others from there.

I hadn't seen that. Thanks.
I wonder what electrum implemented if there's no standard yet. But I see that's been asked/wondered there

I've updated my Bitcoin Core to 0.16.0 and created a few new bech32 address with the command

I've then tried to sign a message with that address but I get the error "The entered address does not refer to a key":

(Address cut in the screenshot for privacy reasons)

However, it is possible to sign and verify this kind of addresses with Electrum (as long as it's not multisign):

(Address cut in the screenshot for privacy reasons)

I can't find the official documentation regarding signing arbitrary messages with these addresses. Can anyone enlighten me?
Did electrum implement its own or an unofficial standard? Will this be supported by Core?

I'm auctioning these three Lite* domains:

LiteMarketplace.com

LitePricing.com

LiteStore.net

All of them are registered on Namesilo and will be pushed for free to the winner's namesilo accoun.

Starting bid for each domain:
BTC0.005 for each domain.
Each domain has an independent auction.

Minimum increment:
BTC0.001. Bids must be multiple of BTC0.001

Buy it now:
BTC0.04 each domain, or BTC0.1 for all 3 (valid if no auction is closed yet).

End date and time:
72 hours after the first bid of a particular domain or 24 hours after the last bid of that domain, whichever is later.
Every domain has its own auction and ends independently.

Newbies:
Users with less than 28 activity can't bid, unless they BIN and pay immediately, or send to me the amount they're bidding for (to be returned minus TX fees if they don't win)

Payment:
Bids must be made in BTC. Payments can be made in BTC, ETH, LTC, GBYTE. I may take other crypto-currencies. PM me before bidding.
The payment must be sent to me or the escrow less than 48h after the auction is closed,
otherwise I may leave negative trust and may sell it to next higher bidder who must complete the deal according to their bid.

After an auction is closed I'll send a signed message (to be verified here, or here) with the payment address. If you prefer to use escrow instead PM me right away.

A vouch wouldn't prove anything either (besides it not being just a blank file). It's not possible to increase your chances of winning.
While there's a house edge it's more likely you lose, no matter the algorithm or the script.

So stop fouling yourselves. OP, stop trying to foul others.

This may get you negative trust if you try to imply the chances are higher than without the script, or even there's some guarantee.

I've updated this to 0.2.
I made some improvements and added support for profiles:

It's working fine for me. What exactly is not working well?

What issues do you have with black bytes on Android?

Have you already reported the issues with more information?

You failed to provide any proof at all.

Please post at least:

• Proof v1ljar is the one you're chatting with on the screenshot you posted. It can be a PM where it gives you his username and another screenshot where that username is shown
• Proof you paid to his address and not any other. It can be a PM or chat where he sends you his address
• The address you gave to him (along with proof you gave him that address) so we can check no payment was received there

Anyway, I've left negative trust on his profile because of another accusation against him. I may edit it depending on new information.
I've PM'd him asking to reply on both.

Yes. It seems so.

What is certain is OP run a campaign and didn't pay for it. Now his excuses are extremely poor. So I've tagged him, almost certainly for good.
I've also tagged masternodecrypto until he responds the accusation. I may remove it depending on what he says.

It wouldn't make much difference TBH. But you can do that too.

Do answer all and every question I made. If you don't provide more information here, publicly, it would be extremely suspicious.

We should move this conversation here. I may tag one or both of them after getting more information. Please lock this thread.

I've asked masternodecrypto to post here.

OP, how exactly was your initial agreement with masternodecrypto? Please post more details.
Why was he escrowing any funds when he has no trust at all?

The screenshots just show an anonymous person asking other anonymous person for a payment. It doesn't prove anything.
And we really don't know anything besides the fact you run a campaign and didn't pay what was offered.