Before you his "post" you can copy the entire content into your clipboard so you have it in case this happens, and can try again.

It could result in private information about you, such as your IP address being released to the government. It could also result in your PMs being released to the government.

The lack of needing a warrant means the process is ripe for abuse by the government. If for example, you are speaking out against the sheriff, the sheriff could go on a phishing expedition to look for illegal activity and then arrest you on a small technical violation of the law. 

That might not even be necessary. Theymos can simply be on the lookout for a bitcoin related case in which the law was used and fund the appeal of a ruling allowing the use of the law to obtain information.

The alternative would be to setup your own DDoS protection, which theymos previously tried, without a lot of success. Even with cloudflare, the forum still appears to be under DDoS attack.

You should go to a pawn shop. You stand a much better chance of getting what you’re looking for. Especially considering the time and expenses associated with shipping a iPhone back and fourth.

DDoS protection services are generally very expensive. Large companies/providers enjoy great advantages via economies of scale.

I agree that additional steps should be taken to ensure privacy, although this may be a lost cause at this point. A better use of resources might be to fund the cost of fighting the acceptance of evidence obtained via this law.

Bump

I would advise against this unless you really know what you are doing and have experience in valuing domains. There is a lot of misinformation in the domain trading space, and it isn't difficult to make domains look to be worth a lot more than they really are.

Being stupid in breaking the law is still breaking the law. If I were to accept that someone was being "stupid" when breaking the law, I would first need to see regret to their actions, and accepting what they did was wrong (ideally very shortly after getting 'caught' - otherwise these become not credible), to my knowledge, lauda has done neither of these, and lauda continues to say what he did was not extortion (eg, he refuses to acknowledge what he did was wrong). The locking of the relevant threads and the leaving of negative trust against shorena (and other attempts to discredit shorena) is in my eyes an attempt to cover up his criminal activity.

If you ask my opinion, lauda does not think what he did was a "stupid mistake", I think that lauda thinks he made a "stupid mistake" in getting caught/exposed.

mysterious01 was offering to artificially keep ANN threads on the 1st page via fake conversations within those threads, while the OP was offering his services to make a single post (or a very small number of posts) by way of engaging in a discussion with other users. I think there is a very big difference between these two things.

I don't think what the OP was engaging in is not all that different than what "community managers" are frequently paid to do.

I would also point out that in the past, users have been given incentives to post in the thread of what they are advertising. 

Why exactly do you think these accounts are all connected?

Actually suggesting someone to do this is not only avoiding having a conversation about the underlying rating, it is being dishonest with the person who is raising the dispute.

If this is true, the only rational explanation is that both blazed and hilarious are actively trying to undermine the credibility of the trust system.

This is the only rational explanation as to why they would add a criminal extortionist and someone as immature and racist as pharmacist. This doesn’t even consider their lack of reputation, credibility and trading experience.

The screenshot was someone responding to an advertisement offering a payment up front if “proof” of accounts available to bump threads were provided. It would be possible that guy was giving a list of accounts he doesn’t control with the hopes of scamming the up front payment. I find it hard to believe this even needs to be said...

There is not anything besides that guy’s word that the OP is the same as that guy....

The screenshot might warrant further investigation to see if a connection can be made however it is not proof of anything.

The OP claims to have responded to bounties on telegram to ask questions about various ICOs.

It could be more complex than the lender not releasing the lien (this would be a fairly simple thing to fix), there may be issues if there is a discrepancy in the legal description, there may be issues with referenced recording information, if there are any issues with the release of the lien and the lender died before the issue is resolved, there may be additional steps needed to be done in probate court.

You are able to keep this thread open for as long as you wish if you want to.

As mentioned previously, I would advise both you and a potential lender from pursuing this for the reasons posted above, unless you are confident the lender knows what they are doing, and are experienced with these types of loans.

I am not sure what bank(s) you have applied with, nor what county you are located in, however you might want to inquire with smaller lenders who might be more willing to make the kind of loan you are seeking.

A handful of people have asked for these types of loans in the past, however to my knowledge, no one has funded this type of loan on the forum.

In addition to the issue you mention that the value of the property needs to be documented, and higher than the amount of the loan, someone making this type of loan will need to ensure the paperwork is done properly (such as having specific terms in the security instrument, and properly recording the security instrument, among many other things). A lender who does not handle the paperwork properly, in accordance with local law, the lender could potentially find himself with an unsecured loan, and even if the loan is paid off in a timely mannor, the lender not knowing what he is doing paperwor-wise could potentially cause you (the borrower) to have title issues down the road, that can be expensive to clean up.

I would not say either authoritivly links either with either. It might warrant an investigation to see if there are additional connections between the two.

With the above being said, I see little other reason for someone to send that many merits to a supposedly random low level user that for all intents and purposes has zero merit otherwise.

I don’t think someone “tagging” scammers should be a criterion to include them in your trust list unless they have nearly 100% accuracy and you can otherwise trust the person. I have seen a number of accounts over the years that were used to call out scams, however they often had very low accuracy, relied on conjecture, and often parroted what others already said, and many times turned out to be less than trustworthy people. Adding someone who “tags” a lot of scammers without substantial trading experience will also lead to poor ratings quality and it will be difficult to authoritatively say they can be trusted.

As mentioned previously, having people on your trust list that left you a positive rating should not necessarily be a bad thing as this is evidence you know the person well enough to trust them.

Also, someone no longer being active is not necessarily a reason to remove them from your trust list as prior trust ratings are not invalid because of this.