If the advertiser is getting the exposure they are paying for this should not be an issue.

The policing of made up “rules” for bounty campaigns is ridiculous.

Being 6 weeks late in paying someone, especially with no communication should be a massive red flag and it would be prudent to not trust him with additional money until at least this gets resolved, possibly longer depending on the circumstances the money is paid, assuming it eventually gets paid.

He has been trusted with a lot of money in the past but you don’t know his financial situation now. You also don’t know if he has decided that his reputation isn’t worth the amount he is holding for others.

I would avoid doing business with him until this is resolved.

This was discussed around the time it happened and I believe it was speculated at the time that it was his wife or other family member that accessed the account.

The charges were not dropped, the DA declined to bring felony charges based on the evidence. This is far from evidence of Creepy Porn Lawyer's proof of innocence.

1 - I don't think there is any evidence that Wohl was behind Avenatti's arrest. I haven't seen any.

The fact that the victim was Avenatti's (ex) girlfriend instead of his ex wife, as briefly reported by TMZ is not going to give Avenatti a cause of action for libel. This discrepancy would only have a nominal impact on his reputation. The reporting that Avenatti said "she hit me first" when he was in the apartment building is most damaging to his reputation, and to my knowledge, this has not been refuted by Avenatti.

The OP has a decent amount of positive trust and trade history.

Provided there are no red flags indicating the OP might not be the owner of his account, I would recommend processing his request. 

@OP -- I would recommend that you amend your signed message to include an email address you want associated with your account. Your signed message does not specify ask to have your account unlocked. Perhaps a good signed message would be:
or

I think the first person to use this argument to have their ban lifted should automatically get unbanned.

---

---

I think this actually would be a good idea, perhaps for things like captcha bypasses, and the ability to rank up and/or the ability to wear (better) signatures. The purpose of using it instead of using Bitcoin would be so that micropayments can be used without bloating the blockchain. 

The problem with this is that it is difficult to pressure someone to remove the rating long after they give the rating if they are later included in the DT network. Also, if someone not in DT starting leaving questionable ratings that do not receive pushback, then someone in DT might start leaving similar questionable ratings.

Can you post the text of what you had deleted and the threads these posts were originally posted in?

The administration (and often the moderators) frequently make questionable comments in regards to the quality of software of Bitcoin Core, however I am not sure I would say forum policies result in posts being deleted that amount to censorship. I am open to being shown wrong however.

If he has the btc to pay participants but hasn’t done so, that would also be concerning. Especially considering he hasn’t given any explanation for the delay.

It doesn't sound like Lutpin was actually acting as an escrow agent to the campaign if they were delays caused by the owner of 777 casino.

If the owner of the 777 casino allowed the escrow wallet to become depleted, then lutpin should have warned participants that he was unable to guarantee payment.

I am strongly against telling people what they can and cannot do with things they have duely earned, and merit falls into this category by way of the fact they ultimately received merit for making a ‘good’ post at one point.

Also these ‘rules’ are something that a dozen or so people have implemented (and enforce unevenly) out of two million registered users and hundreds of thousands of active users. These people were in no way elected to make the rules and you can’t argue this is a private forum because it’s own is on the record as being against these rules.

Further, the concept of merit, or limited amount of karma that can be sent based on the amount received is a very uncommon concept and I would not be surprised to see many who are unfamiliar with merit testing it out with their alts. Sending merit is not reversible, so if someone does this and later sees it is “against the rules” they are liable to receive negative trust forever even if they conduct themselves in a trustworthy way.

Sending merit to an alt is not akin to scamming, however the presence of a negative rating implies someone is a scammer. If someone sees many people with negative ratings for this reason, they will give less weight to a negative rating to an actual scammer who has legitimately (attempted to) stolen money.

Where can one find these rules? How were these rules enacted?

re topic: No

Um, yea, that’s not true.

Creepy Porn Lawyer is under investigation for multiple ethical issues by the Bar. He is under investigation by law enforcement for perjury related issues.

On its face, he has taken actions that were not in the best interest of his client but would benefit him.

I am fairly confident there are other issues that I can’t think of right now.

An assumption made by crypto holders is that miners will act in their own self interest and not risk the value of their equipment to try to attack the Blockchain of a coin they are mining, especially for a major (alt🧺) coin.

CW is suggesting this might not be a valid assumption. If BCH is effectively destroyed then I suspect there will be much less confidence in crypto including bitcoin. If BCH survives without a Blockchain related attack, additional confidence in crypto may be installed.

Inpeachment is basically an indictment and the senate will act as a jury to the charges. If the senate votes by 2/3 majority to convict then the president will be removed from office.

The house will almost certainly impeach Trump, possibly multiple times however the senate will not come close to getting any kind of majority to convict, let alone a 2/3 majority.

I am not sure if this is a serious post or not.

There are a number of problems with your case, the largest being that forum.bitcoin.com is not plagiarizing bitcointalk.

There are likely a large number of forums with similar board names, and there is a decent chance that some of the admins of each of the forums had not even visited any of the other forums with similar board names.

I am not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

I don't think it is appropriate to regulate how merits are given, especially if people are volunteering their time to give out merits. It wouldn't be fair that someone has to learn (and be accountable to) a bunch of rules just to give out something that doesn't have any benefit to them. You cannot 'unsend' merit, so someone who breaks a hypothetical rule would have a hard time remediating their mistake.

That is very much similar to what the merit system is. Although not all merit is given because the sender agrees (or "likes") the post, as a decent amount of merit sent is sent for posts of which a decent amount of effort was put into it.

Maybe for the next April fools day joke, theymos can implement a system in which people can award a "LOL" to posts they find funny, and an "angry merit" for posts that upset someone. People would need both merit and "LOL" in order to rank up, and if the "angry merit" to "LOL" ratio gets too high, their avatar will automatically change to a warning that the person is mean.

It is strange to see someone like you to advocate to wait for the facts to come out. I could have sworn that you used to be strongly against that.

You could argue this is a bug. Like I said before, I don't think theymos would allow a large number of attempts before he would take action on the code/link being used.

Perhaps a solution would be to invalidate the code after xxx number of consecutive attempts to login to an account not associated with the code.