|
Don't listen to those haters, you're on the right track, with one of your first four posts being in Reputation. To develop a reputation within your first dozen posts, you need to post specifically in Meta and Reputation, preferably calling out established members of the forum on their perceived misdeeds. Then people will remember you, at least for a while, and voila, reputation achieved.
Or you know, contribute something useful and original to the community with persistence and you will rank up like everybody else.
|
|
|
|
The game is damn sweet and interesting one, what are we waiting for let the game begins am all in.
Do you want a free taste of how it will work? |
|
|
|
Josh Allen regular season MVP.
Killer hurdle over that defender... that guy can do it all. I think the tide has just waned on the Mahomes KC dynasty. I still like his commercials. |
|
|
|
In any case, @nutildah, it appears that you will win hehe. Justin Herbert, Mike Williams for you and Ekeler for me had good performances for the Chargers. We might see them go to the playoffs.
It was one of those rare instances where my prophecy was heard and got fulfilled. Three players carried my entire team this week. Of course it didn't help you that you had McPherson as your kicker. Man what a game that was! Good for Crosby that he could finally redeem himself after already having 3 chances to do so. Bills looking pretty good to win as well, this week marks the end of my unlucky streak. Did you hear that wheelz? I'm comin for ya! |
|
|
|
There is also another team that has been good against the spread, the Cowboys 4 - 0 ats. Their -7 should be -10 versus the Giants?
If memory serves, you were spot on with your last Cowboys call. I say go for it. |
|
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time finding a reason not to take the Bills +3 tomorrow, their defense has been outstanding and KC seems to be slowing down on both sides of the ball. It is a home game for the Chiefs, however. Bills are 3-1 vs the spread and have the most points against the spread of any team whereas the Chiefs are 1-3.
So... I'm doin it. I'm locking up the Bills to cover, and its not just to justify my decision to bench Mahomes for the week. My record is 0-3 for the year so take it with a grain of salt, or as a reverse barometer.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see the coins were transferred back to your address but your words are meaningless without any bit of evidence to support your backstory. Suppose it doesn't matter by this point. Congrats.
|
|
|
|
I transferred usdt to 0xc0c44cd485d72995fcab9380c5b0715495fff212
This is changelly's deposit address
They transferred my assets to hitbtc
No refund for one month so far Sad
They didn't transfer the assets to HitBTC. The address you were given was a HitBTC deposit address that has only ever been used 1 time. Log in to Changelly and take a screenshot of the order. Be sure to include the URL of the website, but you can black out sensitive info. |
|
|
|
|
I imagine you tried contacting their support again recently already...
That is a large amount but I don't think they would try to steal it from you. There's probably some other things going on. How did you come across the Changelly deposit address? Its a HitBTC address so I'm wondering if you got phished. If you can upload any screenshots you have (remove sensitive info first) that might help.
|
|
|
|
Alright, this is a must win game for my team, so I'm going bold this week and benching my Kansas City offense in favor of the Chargers. I think Herbert is about to blow up in points whereas Mahomes could very well be shut down. We'll see. Meanwhile Mike Williams has been coming out of nowhere with points for me so I've moved him up to my full-time FLEX position. 
Edit: What a game! If you didn't see the crazy double-kick play by Seattle, you'll see it in the highlight reels for some time to come. Go Rams! |
|
|
|
Some more documents uploaded this week. One is a timeline of all the times Craig referred to Dave as his "partner" (boring), and another is why Craig's subpoena for Kleiman's "encrypted and wiped" devices is unenforceable. Kind of interesting. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?page=5First, the subpoena imposes an undue burden on Plaintiff Ira Kleiman. Wright has publicly stated on several occasions that the Devices contain billions of dollars in bitcoin. Although Wright is wrong (lol), he is a high-profile and infamous figure in the cryptocurrency space. Ira should not be compelled to face the risks that come with transporting and possessing what people may (wrongly) believe contain the keys to $55 billion in bitcoin—especially where (i) the end game is to merely permit Wright to present irrelevant evidence to the jury and where (ii) that same end can be accomplished through exemplars and/or images of the Devices.
Second, Defendant gives away the game in the first two sentences of his motion. In short, after 24 months of discovery, over 225,000 documents exchanged, and 22 fact depositions taken, Defendant tacitly concedes that he has found no actual evidence that there is billions of dollars of bitcoin sitting on a bunch of hard drives and thumb drives found in Dave’s home after his death (Defendant attempts to conceal this admission behind his bold, conclusory declarations that these devices are critical to his defense). Then later in the argument: Wright, an infamous and high-profile figure in the cryptocurrency community, has, in this high-profile and closely watched case, taken the public position that the Devices contain billions of dollars’ worth of bitcoin. Plaintiffs dispute that unsupported rank speculation. That said, given the publicity surrounding the trial, and the sheer amount of money Wright claims is contained on the Devices, Mr. Kleiman is sincerely and justifiably concerned that he faces significant risks of being robbed, or worse, in transporting the Devices.
...If Wright wants to take the position that, based on his personal knowledge, David Kleiman stored the private keys to the bitcoin they jointly mined on the Devices, he is welcome to do so. But until he does, there is no evidence that the Devices contain private keys, Wright’s theory of relevance is wholly speculative, and the Devices are inadmissible. The rest of the documents mainly have to do with the prosecutor's plaintiff's rationale as to why Craig's transcripts from ATO hearings should be admissable in court. Here's an interesting excerpt: In 2014, the ATO was investigating Defendant’s companies to determine whether those entities had properly sought certain tax benefits. That investigation concerned, among other things, whether Defendant’s companies were entitled to millions of dollars in tax benefits in connection with their “acquisition” of intellectual property from W&K. Id. Defendant claimed that (1) he had paid millions of dollars in taxes as a result of his acquisition of W&K’s intellectual property, and (2) he and his companies were entitled to a tax refund for that amount. The relevant acquisition purportedly occurred when Defendant secured “Consent Judgments” against W&K in Australian court—the same consent judgments that Plaintiffs allege Defendant used to misappropriate their intellectual property assets. Thus, the ATO’s investigation concerned the validity of one of the same transactions that Plaintiffs challenge here.
...Defendant did not prevail in his dispute with the ATO... Indeed, not only did the ATO find that Defendant was not entitled to the tax benefits that he had claimed in connection with his “acquisition” of W&K’s intellectual property... but the ATO also imposed a $1.9 million penalty on Defendant for making “false or misleading statements” to the Australian government. So it seems BSV is just a continuation of Craig's specialty of employment: investing massive amounts of time, thought and energy into a product never designed to work in the first place. He's obviously a smart fellow in some ways, probably could have made a pretty decent shitcoin of his own without having to attach the name of Bitcoin to it. Oh and this is Craig giving his closing remarks at the Bitcoin SV conference, to a thrilled crowd of believers.  After crashing to fresh lows against BTC shortly thereafter, the price of BSV enjoyed a nice 17% pump today. Short 'em if you got 'em. |
|
|
|
Depends on the kind of game. If it's safe then I probably will have nothing against it. I wish there is a good alternative for the word "losers" so we don't mistakely create too many angry people which could affect our freedom journey in this boat.
I hope to see that we continue the journey in love, friendship, and without much fear.
Hmm... Sorry, this game is definitely not safe and the fear will be real. At least one contestant has to be banned or its just not fun. Ideally I'll get contestants to ban each other. |
|
|
|
So even if that guy edits his post, there's no escaping. If a user corrects his own post, he doesn't get banned. Yep it was on me to just report it and not mention it. Oh well, I guess I wanted to give him a chance to escape, so I can catch him again next time I suppose. https://c.tenor.com/dkbdLcIsoHIAAAAC/cat-kitten.gifYou know in times like these, I'm often reminded of some words by my good friend Carl. "This doesn't matter. None of this matters." |
|
|
|
|
Right so the title pretty much sums it up.
The game takes place in its own thread and only the players can post there. There's a contestant signup questionnaire, and when we get enough contestants I 'randomly' select 8 of them to compete for amazing piles of merits.
However, there's a twist you see, and that is not everyone can be a winner. And... some of the losers will probably be banned along the way. And at some point contestants will have to sell each other out to survive, that's a given. But for every loser that is eliminated, the winners get a greater share of merits.
I could totally do it but it might be considered cruel by party poopers.
Local Rule: I haven't watched all the SG episodes yet, so no spoilers.
I had this other idea where I wanted to make a "Choose Your Own Adventure"-type thing out of my old posts, but that would be very time consuming and all's it takes is one person to report a post as "off-topic" and it would break.
|
|
|
|
So when this happens after I report a post for plagiarism:  and the user escapes a ban, for the second time, I have to admit I'm quite tempted to red trust users for plagiarism. It's just repeated dishonesty. I would never trust either of these accounts with a single dollar knowing how comfortable they are with lying. Every word either account has ever written is a boring plea for merit. |
|
|
|
Probably. I'm curious as to what you mean by "post history review." They wanted you to look through their posts for... merits? Whatever its for, yes, that's particularly peculiar. What got me was how often they both talk about what a newbie they are. They're still doing it. I am also very new in the forum
However, my pattern of giving merit has not defeated the forum rules and besides I am a new Eva newbie striving to grow.
The very first post by KingsDen was instructions on what newbies and older members should be doing. It was a plea constructed for merit right out of the gate. Every post by either account is a gross attempt to suck up merit and devoid of original thought, but at the end of the day he's not hurting anybody so who cares. Kind of like RainbowCityDAO Guy. If they were both enrolled in the same campaign that might raise some eyebrows but without concrete evidence, its not enough to confirm them as alts.
HOWEVER Here's an example of what I mean by "devoid of original thought": Research on Bitcoin adoption in NigeriaThis post is just a long, oddly strung-together collection of other people's words. From the post: Many young Nigerians are adopting bitcoin amid the crypto ban put in place by the Nigerian Central Bank. In fact, since the start of 2021, peer-to-peer bitcoin trading has grown to $204 million, the largest amount in Africa.
Data collated from Usefultulips, a Bitcoin analytic provider, shows Nigeria beats the rest of Africa combined on the use of bitcoin for p2p transactions.
That is directly plagiarized from this article:  Despite his huge list of "references" (more like sources of copied material), he failed to mention the yahoo article the above-text is from, which means this is a pretty straightforward case of plagiarism. Everything he ever did was for the sake of achieving merits.  |
|
|
|
|
"They really needed more yards than that on a third down if they wanted a fresh set of downs. Instead of throwing it to this guy, who couldn't get the yards, the QB should've have thrown it here or maybe over here if the guy moved a little bit outside. But instead he threw it short, the receiver was tackled well shy of the first down marker, and now they have to kick it away without getting any points.
After all, the game is all about points. You can't win if you don't have enough points. And you can't get points if you don't get first downs. They really need to work on advancing the ball next time."
|
|
|
|
This is the 60 Minutes interview with the FB whistleblower, interesting stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lx5VmAdZSIShe says she was motivated to accept the job after she lost a friend to online conspiracy theories. Imagine that such a thing was possible that obsessing about conspiracies could make people difficult to bear. |
|
|
|
Mind blowing if this is actually true, although i would be delighted if so.
Me too. I'm all for revolution as much as the next guy but I would be surprised if this turns out to be more than a minor setback for them. This would explain the sudden slow-down of Telegram, they probably just onboarded a few million new users. |
|
|
|
So of course that's not what happened. The article even says it was only claimed to be for sale. Nothing but a sample portion of scraped data (not hacked) has thus far been released. People who paid for the data set have received nothing. The author admits his assumptions were incorrect, but you'd only know that if you read the article. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
