The forum does have rules. Although they have often gone unenforced, especially when it comes to ban evasion.

I don’t think regulations of bounty managers will accomplish anything because they can just manage campaigns off site, and attempting to regulate may preemptively do that.

Even if regulations were put in place, I wouldn’t penalize BMs because they can’t speak English or because they themselves make shit post garbage.

I think a better solution would be to charge to create both an ANN thread and to create a bounty thread. Some exceptions can be made if a coin exceeds certain criteria, especially for ANN threads. The cost should not be nominal, perhaps in the thousands of dollars.

There are very few people in the bitcoin ecosystem that I am aware of that are against an ETF.

A ETF is not going to create bitcoin out of nowhere regardless of if they are backed by bitcoin or by bitcoin futures (I’m not sure what else they could be backed by).

The only way bitcoin can potentially be created out of thin air is if on chain transactions become prohibitively expensive enough so that people store bitcoin on bitcoin banks that lend out deposits and those loans are used to pay others via off chain transactions within the bank. A bitcoin bank could potentially owe 2mm BTC to deposit holders, hold 500k BTC via settled transactions, and own 1.55mm BTC in promissory notes (the net present value, including accounting for estimated credit losses).

IIRC, theymos said he didn’t want to help create regulations that would likely help the ETF get approved (and in turn would likely increase adoption). This is counterproductive because it is possible that eventual regulations will be more restrictive than what theymos May have gotten implemented.

I am confident that theymos is not going to implement regulations as requested by the OP. I would probably be against these types of regulations anyway. It would probably be better to reform the forum in other ways that improves the experience of users.

It is of my opinion that Gavin played a sufficiently large role in early bitcoin development that he deserves additional recognition. Maybe not necessarily a VIP badge although when Mark Kappalous (or however you spell it) hosted the forum he was given a free VIP badge.

He took over development after satoshi stopped working on development and even though others also contributed, the bitcoin project may very well could have been abandoned if it weren’t for Gavin.

His views on the future of development differs significantly from those in power and he won’t be given additional recognition.   

Theymos doesn’t believe in regulations. He refuses to participate in the creating of regulations that would even result in greater freedoms (ability to buy btc in etf form) for bitcoin holders.

Bounties altcoins is the correct board.

The high number of threads in that board does mean that it is difficult to have people find your thread only by visiting that board. You may want to otherwise promote the threads you are running either on a thread with a list of campaigns you are running that is independently promoted (perhaps via advertising) or via a website that is promoted.

I think it would be a good idea to somehow index threads on that board and make it so you cannot get your thread to the top by someone posting.

So you think this person is a bad translator? Why do you think this makes him a scammer? Don't you think it would make more sense to simply not hire him, and let others make their own decision if they want to hire him based on his prior work, that may or may not improve over time?

No but now you need 1000 merit along with the activity requirements.

That law gives law enforcement access to information stored in the Cloud that is stored overseas upon possession of a search warrant. This basically means you cannot hide private information overseas in the cloud. However, importantly, this law (nor any other law that I am aware of) allows a cloud account to be searched when its owner crosses a border.

If there is probable cause, and law enforcement is able to obtain a warrant for data, the fact the data is in the cloud is not going to affect law enforcement's ability to obtain said information.

Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

I think the moderation of that thread is probably a bit too aggressive.   

I had a post deleted that were discussing Merrick Garland, and this is a rationale as to one reason the left has given as to why they believe it is okay to treat Kavanaugh the way he was.

Another post was deleted discussing the number of SC justices, which in on topic because the appointment of Kavanugh will tilt the balance of the court to the right, and increasing the number of SC justices may negate that.

Both realistically are on topic because they speak to the root causes of the opposition to him.

I am pretty sure that extortion is tolerated here. I can give you an example of a person who clearly extorted someone via PM, the incident was made very public, yet they had only nominal repercussions. I am not saying I would disagree if these people were removed from the forum, however it is my understanding that hard core Libertarians believe that extortion is okay, as it creates a "free market" of people willing to pay for certain information to not be made public -- this is not logic I endorse, and I believe this logic is flawed. 

I am saying that if you read the rating, you will see there is no point to reviewing the reference because there is no indication they are a scammer based on the text of the rating.

Can I list all of them? No, there are too many. Some examples of this are below:

I refuse to recognize someone having >2 accounts participating in a signature campaign as being a "scammer" -- they will provide the same amount of advertising as they are getting paid to provide. You may argue these people have a high rate of low quality posts, however if this is true, leaving negative trust for this is only covering up inaction by the administration (at best).
Pot, meet kettle.
Needs to be dealt with by administration, not a trust issue
Administration issue, not a trust issue
This rating is legit, if the text of the rating can be substantiated, however I highlight this rating for the irony.
If their work quality is subpar, they will ultimately not get hired

This is far from a comprehensive list, and I just found some examples starting from the most recent ratings Lauda left.

 

It is very notable that your complaint lacks the word ‘scammer’

It might be a good idea to either post or review the text of the rating. On its face, many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition.

I am not expert, however I would think this would be a simple display issue.

It would probably be an even better option to verify that anyone someone is considering leaving negative trust that they are in fact a scammer (or someone who will likely scam in the future). They shouldn’t leave a negative rating just because lauda says the are a scammer without evidence.

Out of curiosity, do you think it might be more beneficial to post the handle of the accounts versus the UIDs? I don’t think many people search by UID when researching accounts.

I have a feeling that many of these people are fairly harmless and probably aren’t scammers by any reasonable standard

You spelled ‘scammer’ wrong.

SaltySpitoon previously had Lauda in his trust list due to the dubious claim that since many new users included Lauda in their trust list, and that many experienced users excluded Lauda, that new users collectively want lauda on DT. This logic did not make sense.