The connection checks out. The only thing I haven't ruled out is the possibility that jamalaezaz was sold before he got involved in shady business. It should be easy enough to check the security log for PW and email changes, and I am not sure when he first got in the campaign management business.

I would be skeptical of any explanation as to "why" they are not the same person, including that aTriz did work for jamalaezaz

The meta section is clogged with lots of junk threads and these types of reports can easily get overlooked. Also a dedicated section would help filter these reports to those who have a history of making good reports.

He hired someone to make posts from his account for him.

They are almost all in the same thread....and the OP made this thread weeks ago...

I fear that the merit system will lead to the echo chambers that make up Facebook and Reddit.

Something absolutely needs to be done to prevent farmers from creating massive numbers of accounts with shit posts, however I don’t think the merit system as implemented is the solution.

There was an “airdrop” of merit when the merit system was first implemented and much of the merit that will be spent from that has been spent.

To me, the specific icons don’t matter, it is more about the recognition.

For selfish purposes, I think it would be nice to have an icon for those with 3,000 good reports.

It also might be beneficial to have a special sub for those with 1000 or more good reports that can be used similarly to how the staff sub is used, to report spammers, identifying trends, ban requests etc.

I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. 

I don’t think selling accounts makes hacking accounts profitable. If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account, which IMO is worse than you selling my account because if you sold my account, I could argue to the buyer their lack of a signed message is an indication they did not do proper due diligence and they were scammed by someone else, however if you were scamming from my account directly that argument would not work.

Further the reason accounts have value is because they can generate income. Using the above scenario, if you cannot sell my account after hacking it, you could use it to generate income, likes

If you are asking to personally hold the 10 ETH, you are out of your mind. If you are wanting for someone to hold 10 ETH on your behalf, perhaps so you can claim an airdrop or for a similar reason, you will likely find many willing lenders to help you.

If you want to hold the 10 ETH, you will need to offer valuable collateral worth much more than the loan amount.

Following hilarious' comment that your posts are not absolute garbage, you are right, merits are generally given out based on the underlying content, not the effort put into one's post. The unfortunate reality is that people generally will give out merit (with many exceptions) to posts they are in agreement with, and will withhold merit on posts they disagree with.

It is my belief that there should be incentives to make posts, and disincentives to make shit/spam posts, and to remove the current incentives that currently exist to make shit/spam posts.

edit: I reviewed your posts, and I gave you sufficient merit to rank up to "member" status.

Trump is married and has a young child (he also has a brand whose value is closely associated with his reputation). The payment to Stormy was to protect the Marriage (and others mentioned above), and according to Trump/Cohen would have been paid regardless of if Trump was running for President.

The NDA is the point of the payment, and the pseudonyms create distance between the agreement and Trump.

According to Trump, these types of agreements are common among the very wealthy, and are used to prevent a wealthy person's family from hearing about bogus allegations. There was a short time between when the affair/payment was disclosed/leaked by Avenatti (the creepy porn lawyer), and when the details of the affair and NDA become credible. I suspect that no credible claim would have ever reached Trump's family if it were not for the fact that Trump is president and Avenatti had not clearly acted in a way that is clearly not in his client's best interest.

Greg Maxwell's comments about Anunymint should be condemned in the strongest way possible. It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.

The comments made by Maxwell only give credibility to those claiming censorship on bitcointalk and r/bitcoin (Greg Maxwell is a moderator of both). The same is true for the absence of a strong condemnation of Maxwell's statement.

Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this. 

The sale of fake IDs and stolen credit cards is illegal in most of the civilized world, so this is already against forum rules.

Further, both of your examples have real victims, and the harm is not that someone's feelings are hurt. There will be people and/or entities that will ultimately suffer real financial losses as a result of stolen credit cards and/or fake IDs.

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts. None of the flawed arguments against account sales even make this claim. In fact these arguments fail to account for *real* market incentives not to do the very same things that those against account sales claim sales cause.

It is ridiculous to claim any kind of authority to regulate what people can and cannot do. Especially when you are in absolutely no way elected, and in no way accountable for your decisions. People who regulate others' actions who are neither elected nor accountable are generally described as "dictators".

It is not necessarily a function of being desperate, it is a function of market economics. People in happy marriages pawn off their wedding rings all the time to meet current financial needs, and pawn shops lend out amounts in line with what they can sell them for at a profit if/when the loan goes into default (although someone pawing off their wedding ring is probably in a desperate situation, so maybe this is a bad example). Other examples of people taking out loans similar to "account loans" would include people taking title loans against their car, and home equity loan against their homes. They also pawn valuable property that is not as sacred as a wedding ring.


This shows the importance of not accepting collateral at a value the lender is not confident he can sell quickly for the amount lent, plus interest, plus the value of his time selling the collateral. A smart lender will be familiar enough of the market of whatever he is accepting as collateral to know how much he can sell whatever he is accepting as collateral, and lending out sufficiently less than a quick liquidation value so the borrower has sufficient incentives to repay his loan. In other words, the lender should only lend out so much based on the collateral he is receiving so he will profit if the borrower defaults on the loan.

Ironically, the reported goals of the 2016 Russian meddling was to sow discord in US politics, which those on the Left are gladly furthering, probably to the point that their behavior is resulting in much greater discord than Russia could have even hoped for.

I would not be surprised to Mueller (and his team) leak additional information and/or indict additional people just before the midterms, although many on the right are already calling Mueller's actions as political. For example, RealClearPolitics has called out the fact that the recent indictments left out hacking attempts by the Russians on Republicans, and Andrew McCarthy of NationalReview, called out the indictments as "nakedly politicized law enforcement", as those indicted should not be presumed innocent, and will never see the inside of a US courtroom.

Also of interest, Rod Rosenstein is in the process of getting impeached, although Identity Politics, and the number of Democrats in the Senate will prevent him from being found guilty in Congress. I personally think a contempt of congress charge would be more appropriate that is enforced by the House, rather than an impeachment.   

Sarcasm?

Very few people are so corrupt that they will leave negative ratings against people that speak out against them for made up reasons. Your level of corruption is the exception rather than the rule.

See won’t get tagged because he isn’t weak enough to be unable to defend his actions. He would win a debate of the issue on its merits.

A scandal? I don't think it was a secret that Trump was/is a womanizer, and CNN was publishing tapes that were more than a decade old of Trump calling into Howard Sterns radio show. What was being published was much worse politically than Trump having an extramarital affair with a (ugly) porn star. 

Further, there were multiple (likely politically motivated) allegations of non-consensual sexual activity on the part of Trump around that time, and a single additional consensual relationship would likely have swayed few, if any voters one way or another. 

I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen).

I have not (and will not) reviewed that study, however it is one study, and there are other ways to evaluate what data is relevant and draw conclusions. Unfortunately, anyone who even questions the conclusion of global warming is shouted down, so there is little to no debate within the scientific community on the matter.

Are you an alt of pugman? If not, then why are you bumping his thread?