I know he is/was in a legal dispute with one of the scammers he bused several years ago, IIRC, it was with cyberpinoy. I vaguely remember something about claims of something along the lines of stalking (maybe his wife), that very well could have been dubious.

This could mean two things:
1, he could be trying to create doubt as to if he is really posting what is being said by the account in order to muddy the legal waters.
2, he could actually need the money as a result of his legal bills and potentially a judgement against him. As I previously mentioned, he may not be in a position to repay a loan (even though many would likely be lining up to lend to him). If he really needed the money, he may have chosen to sell his account to someone who understood what he was buying instead of entering into a transaction without the intention of holding up his end of the deal in order to get the $600

It looks like he was asking for about $600.

If you were going to help, would you be okay with the fact that he has a valuable asset that he has not yet sold?

I would say there is a fairly decent chance it was sold, buy maybe not. The password changes indicate it likely changed hands, however the PM was sent after most of the changes. I don't think the password would change until after the account was sold, and I think these types of PMs would stop once the account was sold.

The only other explanation I can think of is the account sold to someone, and the buyer was trying to flip it.

He is trying to sell his account, not borrow against it, so he may not be in a position to repay what is given to him (IDK). Are you willing to contribute to the cause?

(ignoring the fact that begging is not allowed here) would you like it if you were asked for money by long standing members?

I don’t think this is proof the account was sold, it is fairly good evidence it is for sale though.

Bruno has contributed a fairly decent amount to the community over the years and based upon the fact he is (trying) to sell his accounts he likely is in need of money. So I would ask both hilarious and darkstar if they want to actively prevent Bruno from raising money he likely needs by selling something he duly owns? 

Happy birthday.

Well appearently there was another case in which there were muslins who were part of some kind of sex trafficking ring that the press was barred from reporting on (or maybe they were barred from reporting on significant parts of the case) and Robinson was allegedly reporting on the case by way of filming some of the defendants going into the courthouse. Robinson was subsequently changed with contempt of court.

The case in question he was reporting on also has to do with police corruption apparently.

It would not be possible to bar the press from reporting on a court case in the US, nor would a court be able to prevent someone from being able to film in a public place.

It seems that Freedom of Speech does not quite exist in the UK as it does in the US or most of the rest of the world.

Ideally, this will get enough attention in the UK (without the press covering it) for its citizens to be outraged enough for new laws to get passed guaranteeing *real* freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

The document itself is little different than previous agreements that NK has participated to in the past. The difference this time is that in the past, the US was willing to essentially give money and sanctions relief what was basically up front, which is not the case now. In this agreement, the US agreed to stop military exercises with South Korea (which were little more than a show of force to NK), and security guarantees that last as long as good faith negotiation continues. There was also the threat of military action on the part of the US, and Trump seems to be willing to use military action against NK if necessary, which I don't think was the case with previous administrations, certainly not the Obama administration.   


Germany being reunified was the result of the USSR collapsing (in essence). I don't think the NK government will fall, at least not without the help of a foreign (to NK) government as NK has too much control over their people. Although like the USSR, NK appears to be rapidly running out of money.


I don't think it is that simple. The Trump administration, in conjunction with the UN, have placed strong sanctions against NK, making it difficult for NK to fund its operations. There are various rumors as to how much money NK has left, but the general consensus is that it is not very much, and they are having more and more difficulty selling what little exports they have.


Kim was given some security guarantees by the US, and the US needs to keep this agreement if it wants to have any chance of reaching a deal with Iran. If the US reneges on security guarantees, the chances of war breaking out with Iran go way up, and if Iran does successfully develop a nuke, they could potentially sell it to a terrorist organization (or potentially even the underlying technology to a terrorist organization), which would be good for no one.

In the past NK was able to renege on stopping their nuke program because they were given nearly everything up front, and has little to gain by keeping their end of the deal. There is also the issue of money and sanctions as the Trump sanctions against NK have reportedly been particularly effective and there have been reports that NK is low on money.

Pompeo visited NK when he was still the head of the CIA, and Tillerson was fired very shortly after this visit. I suspect that Pompeo got the process started as the head of the CIA, possibly as a result of intelligence the CIA had on NK, and he was effectively acting as secretary of state while he was waiting to be confirmed on the NK issue.

I agree, in most cases, it will be best to contest a negative rating yourself. However there are cases when this is not true, for example if you do not speak english very well, or if you are having trouble articulating an argument.

I would not say the type of service the OP is offering is regulating the contesting of unjust ratings in any way, the recipient is free to contest the rating himself.

Also on your point this being a community effort, I would agree, however I would also say the community has failed in this regard. The instances of cases in which contested ratings are really even discussed are few and far between. Most of the time, conversations about contested ratings both start and finish with "xx doesn't trust you, therefore the negative rating is valid" which in no way is looking into the legitimacy of the underlying rating.



I would disagree. Someone breaking forum rules needs to be dealt with via the administration either themselves or via delegated authority of the moderators. Most instances of rule breaking are dealt with by giving the person some kind of warning -- be it a PM, a post being deleted or a temp ban -- and the person doesn't break the underlying rule again (or they don't after multiple warnings). A negative rating on the other hand is pretty much always going to be longer lasting than any warning, and in most instances will be permanent -- this will result in many people effectively being excluded from the community that probably should not be.

You have a small number of people who leave negative ratings for subjective reasons (that are often questionable), it just appears this is more widespread because of the vast number of ratings they hand out. In my prior post, I provided an example of when I received a negative rating for no reason other than I was calling out a scam attempt someone was engaged in. By the criteria that you can leave a negative rating because you "distrust" someone would mean you can leave a negative rating for someone calling out your scam attempt, and if this is acceptable, then those in the DT network get a free pass in scamming.

Generally speaking the admins are very good at reading PMs. If you have not received a response then you likely have received your answer.

Your account will not be recovered via a signed message alone, as the admins will look at additional non public information to decide if you are really the owner of the account.

US President Donald Trump and NK leader Kim Jong Un have just signed an unspecified document at the completion of a summit between the two countries in Singapore.

What are the implications of this summit? Will this lead to the end of a war that has technically been ongoing for more than 6 decades? Will this lead to verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea?

Also, although not directly related to the summit, how will this affect the situation with/in Iran?

This logic is similar to why Fire trucks are typically red....

He is a troll but I wouldn’t ignore everything he says blindly. Although I have to admit he is a rather good troll, probably one of the better ones.

I am not sure if this is suppose to be satire or not.

This is very similar to the logic used by timelord and I wouldn’t give it much credence.

There is a difference between being unable to articulate why you believe someone is a small in a small number of instances and using the fact that you "do not trust" someone as a basis for a negative rating in almost every instance.


In 2014, I called out a purchased account on DT that was being used to further a scam. In response to my opening that thread, I received a negative rating from that person. Logically speaking, he did not trust me, as you generally will not trust someone calling out your scams, or otherwise accusing you of something that, if proven true would have negative consequences for you. Would you consider chalidore's negative rating against me to be "valid" on that same basis?


If you ask my opinion, suchmoon gave a negative rating to the OP because she does not like the services the OP is providing. The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.


I don't know about you, but I don't send money to what is "probably" the correct address, and I don't see why you (or anyone who cares about their reputation) would act any differently when it comes to handing out negative ratings.

The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.


Just because someone has not scammed someone, does not mean a negative rating is not appropriate. A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

I might agree with looking at comments on trust pages for comments that are not in your trust list as these comments to not play a factor in trust scores, and you generally should not ignore scam reports unless you can verify they are invalid. However the reason someone is in your trust network is because they give accurate ratings, and if you are finding that someone is giving out ratings that you are ignoring, then this person should not be in your trust network. 

Anyone who has a generally basic understanding of how mining works (and the economics behind mining), will reasonably know that IceRock has no way of reliably generating the returns they promise solely via a mining operation. The variables of the difficulty and the price of the crypto being mined cannot be controlled, and if they vary enough from the underlying assumptions (against the miner), profitability will be lower than what is promised.


I believe their target audience/market was those who do not understanding the economics behind mining, and those who only know that in the past mining has generated fairly decent returns for miners.

I don't particularly agree with the tagging of this activity, but there really isn't really any point in rehashing that argument.

I do think if you are going to be tagging anyone for doing this, you should be tagging everyone (that you are aware of). So given your stance, I am glad you didn't make an exception for him.

The answer is that lenders should not accept forum accounts as collateral. This answer is obviously damaging to the economy, however it is the only solution to make the trust system be applied equally to everyone.

You should ask The Pharmacist and Lauda to respond here.

It will be the one the hacker used. This allows it so even if an admin recovers an account the hacker still has access to the account. /s