My analysts and the underlying facts speak for themselves.

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ), and as such, they reasonably do not have any real incentives to maintain a marketplace with accurate trust ratings, nor do they have the experience necessary to distinguish between someone "not knowing any better" not to do something shady, and someone who is likely to be an actual scammer (someone who will actively attempt to steal money from others, or otherwise fraudulently obtain money from others). Also, these people have little to lose in their own business when they go around giving out unjust trust ratings.

I think that is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

The above says two things, 1st it explicitly says that the bitcoin would be held in 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z, and 2nd, it implied that each of the three above escrows would be the sole custodian of one of the three private keys that can spend funds in the above address, requiring two of those keys.

The bitcoin very much was not held in that address, and there is circumstantial evidence that all of the bitcoin was able to be spent by one person.

The above is a breach of contract.

Further, there is a minimum of 10BTC unaccounted for in regards to the BCH coins being exchanged for bitcoin. If you were to describe this in the most generous of terms, you would say this is a "fee" for exchanging the coins, however this was neither disclosed, nor agreed to before the "fee" was charged. Realistically, this money was stolen, and the amount is most likely to be closer to 30BTC or so, based on trading volumes at the time.

I would make similar statements in regards to the various alts collected, however the amount missing is far greater, in the millions of dollars, and the percentage of money from the sale of the altcoins missing is also far greater.

Andy Kessler an editorial column in the WSJ today, that will presumably be published in Monday's paper.

He argues that UBI created government dependency, and would lead to socialism. One missing piece from his argument is that entitlements inevitably will be expanded over time.

An interesting portion of his piece is:

If you read my post, you would see that I said it was around that time....

---

I think it is interesting to see you didn't pose publicly debating the rating as an option.

This is exactly what happens when many people are added to DT who don't have any serious amount of trading experience.

In the past, people trying to take these types of loans would be first given a warning that what they are doing looks shady, and are given the opportunity to lock their request to avoid the negative trust.

theymos said around the time trust exclusions were implemented that those who give negative ratings to those who are not scammers will not be in the Default Trust network.

Today, users who regularly give out negative ratings to their enemies who are clearly not scammers, and who otherwise regularly give negative trust who can in no reasonable way be described as a scammer, are regularly not only added to the DT network, but will receive additional inclusions by those on DT1 when others exclude them.

I suspect that most plagiarism spammers are run via automation, and the person behind the account will never see that warning.

This is also not something that people should need to be told to not do. It is not unlike saying that you cannot extort someone.

This is not new. If you are permanently banned, no reason will be displayed. If you have a temporary ban the person implementing the ban will put a reason.

Social media platforms should provide more tools to help people decide for themselves what is true and what is fake news/disinformation. One way might be to use those in a persons network to help a person decide what are reliable sources.

I am strongly against social media companies censoring fake news as they are not entities that I want to be arbiters of truth. They are potentially more powerful than government in their control of information and would generally be held unaccountable if they censored true information that is damaging to their priorities.

This very well could be something other than its stated goal of lighting the sky in China. They say it will save ~$180 in annual lighting/electric costs, but what would they do when it is cloudy?

I speculate it’s true purpose is to either spy on their citizens or to interfere with other country’s spy satellites imaging China.

Maybe not...maybe ~43% is closer to accurate (even under liberal standards of tagging people)...

What if you are offa merit in exchange for posting some kind of research that would normally warrant a payment? Such a post might normally receive merit however it would probably also warrant an offer of payment from the person soliciting the information.

I also regularly receive what is basically someone begging for merit. I often review their post history and decline to respond. However one might argue that it would be fair to charge for my valuable time to review someone’s posts, especially if they post in topics uninteresting to me. It would probably be unfair to charge to review posts and end up not giving a merit.

Why were you unable to reimburse the 12th top reachable user?

That weakens the case for action a little bit. Although I would probably still want action considering he worked for a US company in the US as a reporter.

He has fairly strong ties to the US and isn’t accused of doing anything that would threaten anyone’s safety.
Trump has asked the free market to ignore those who inaccurately and unfairly report on him. He hasn’t caused any form of violence or otherwise attempted to use force to compel any reporters to say certain things.

I believe he is a US citizen, which strengthens the case for intervening. I don’t think it would be good for the US, or anyone if foreign governments are able to go around killing US citizens without consequence.

If this was sanctioned by a foreign government, action needs to be taken.

I suspect that changing the laws/reducing the red tape around deporting illegals will make the wall redundant. A southern wall may still be built, however the law will no longer give incentives to cross the border illegally.

Some political pundits have said that Biden is the only democrat who could potentially defeat Trump in 2020. He is probably moderate enough to win the general election, although post 2016, the Democratic Party has moved fairly sharply to the left and might not be able to win the nomination. The fact that he was Obama’s VP in 2016 may raise questions about his involvement in the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, and even if he was not involved, it may bring up unflattering things about the Obama administration.

I would hope that Democrats have learned their lesson regarding essentially rigging who wins the nomination.

I would be surprised to see a republican run as a third party absent some major scandal regarding Trump that has actual substance. Flake isn’t running for reelection in part because his stance against Trump makes him unable to win an election in Arizona. I would also be surprised to see him run in a situation that would effectively guarantee someone with some kind of a socialist platform becoming president, which is virtually guaranteed based on the current Democratic Party.

If Flake, or another republican had already set up a formal campaign (or a PAC), it would be a matter of public record, and would make the news, which I haven’t seen.

If the Democrats have another what some believe to be an unfair primary process, we may see a third party democrat run. Some have also said that the Creepy porn lawyer is a republican plant, and if this is true, he will run as a third party (he may also otherwise run).

Trump could have won with some third party winning a few small states in 2016, and the same is true in both of Obama elections and Bushs 2004 election (and others). I suspect that a political party (and voters) will generally rally around a single candidate, even if not their nominee. If voters believe the president will be chosen by congress they may vote in smaller numbers if they would otherwise vote for that party, so the party that only has one nominee may win states the other party would otherwise win.

It sounds like this means that for all intents and purposes, you will only need to use a captcha once, when you create your account, provided you save the bypass link and can access it when you login.

This is probably a step forward for tor users, although CF sometimes otherwise makes using tor difficult. It would probably be helpful (and marginally profitable) to sell unique .onion addresses intended for individual users that can be used to access the forum via tor. Privacy would only be impacted marginally, although depending on how much information you think CF collects, it may help privacy.

1 - Find proof
2 - Report said thread with said proof
3 - ? ? ?
4 - Profit