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

Back when SR was open, talking about Silk Road was somewhat taboo, I have read that people were banned for talking about it (this likely included the posting of links to SR).

Bitcoin was largely still in its infancy when SR1 was running and except for the last few months before shutting down, law enforcement had no idea who was running it. I believe I have read that theymos at one point was suspected as being behind SR, which logically would have contributed to SR being taboo.

Thank you for clearing that up.

If you are interested in becoming a merit source, I would advise finding recent posts that currently have little to no merit. Anyone can find a bunch of posts that already have merit (they are public). The reason any given person would be added as a merit source is to allow them to give posts merit that doesn’t already have merit— ie. to broaden the scope of posts that receive merit, and indirectly, broaden the scope of people who receive sufficient merit to rank up (that have sufficient post quality).

Most of those posts either already have a decent amount of merit, or are not recent enough to be relevant. 

Also, since there is the allegation on your trust page, I may as well ask it since you are asking to be put in a position of trust, are you an alt of either lauda or aTriz, or any other member, past or present of ALU?

A disproportionate number of VIPs ran a business on the forum -- they likely donated the 50 BTC as a way of giving back to the community -- and many businesses failed for one reason or another, and failed businesses often have similar characteristics of a scam. 

The barriers to entry into most "industries" were very low back then, a lot of community members were more trusting with their coins than they probably should have been, and it took longer than normal for things like poor management and poor security practices to be exposed.

I suspect that some of the VIPs who have only one or two posts likely were involved in some kind of shady dealings and have subsequently deleted their posts to cover their tracks....this may have been the result of outright scams, or it may have been the result of poor management and/or deals that went poorly.

I believe that information was collected to allow theymos to generate 1099s for payments sent. There isn’t any reason to keep this online and certainly no reason to keep it on public facing forum servers.

The forum has been hacked a couple of times in the past, including once in which IP information and email addresses were leaked. Do you want the possibility that your KYC documents are made public?

That is a negative ghost rider.

I think based on the evidence, it is probably fair to say that Gleb was in fact *not* hacked/sold.

I am not sure if he actually wanted to join that campaign or if he was trolling, I am guessing probably the later.

Unfortunately the administration has been very much hands off on trust disputes as of recently. This has been the case for a good several years now.

This has resulted in a very small number of people having an outsized amount of power within the forum economy, and very little discourse as to if any disputed trust rating is appropriate or not. Often conversations about trust ratings start and end with "~he doesn't trust you therefore the rating is legit~".

I would suggest removing the amount escrowed all together.

IMO, most people who represent how much they have escrowed do so in a misleading way, one way or another.

The value of coins varies so much that it is difficult to measure the value of a trade if the coins were held for even a week or so, which is not unusual. As h&c mentioned, holding 1 bitcoin 100 times is very different than holding 100 btc once, and holding one btc two years ago is different than holding a coin today.

Also, holding tokens on behalf of the issuer is borderline dishonest that there is even escrow because it would be trivial for the issuer to effectively void the specific tokens.