I just saw your thread, that's a great idea.  I wish I could join, but sportsbet isn't available in my United States.  

I love poker, it's great fun.  I have some buddies I play with at least a three or four times a year, taking turns hosting.  A couple of years ago on Christmas night the kids wanted to play a board game, which bore the hell out of me.  I suggested we play poker, so we divided up the change in the coin jar and got started.  We had so much fun, now it's Christmas night tradition.

I may be a strict dad, but I never claimed to be a "good influence."

So what if they collaborated?  Is it only a valid accusation if no collaboration took place?



I see, your issue isn't with the "unproven accusations" but rather with the people presenting them.  Got it, you don't like nutildah, suchmoon, or me.  Now that we've got that cleared up, debunk the the evidence, please?



I don't know what gave you the impression that I can't be reasonable, or that our's that is the "reasonable" opinion, for that matter.  It's just an opinion, after all, which is subjective.  But I must ask; how reasonable is it to attack the messenger, and not the underlying issue?

---

If you take a gander at the last couple of pages you'll see; this isn't about defending Quickseller, it's not about what's right or wrong, it's not about protecting the forum from proven scammers making their way to DT.  It's about attacking the accusers, because of who the accusers happen to be in this case.

Look at these arguments; they're all over the place, jumping from one inane comment to another, none of which really address the root of the issue.  They only focus on the individuals involved, not the evidence.  The longer this thread goes the more it will devolve into bickering and meaningless interpersonal squabbles.

Electrum isn't a company, it's an open source client software.  You can easily create a wallet without that feature, just select "standard wallet" instead the 2FA option.  I believe you can also restore your current wallet from the seed phrase, and disable the 2FA feature.

But that was my point in my previous post; i.e. Suchmoon did leave a neutral and call it a day, months ago.  He didn't start this thread, Nutildah did.  He didn't start the previous thread, some butthurt newbie did.  He didn't start this drama, PrimeNumber7 did when he nominated himself.

And Suchmoon certainly doesn't need me defending him, he's quite capable.

---

I don't know where you get the notion that Suchmoon and I need to agree on everything.  Suchmoon and I do share the concern of PN7 marching his way towards DT.  That would be detrimental, in my opinion.  But, if he earns a few sats on a signature campaign, that doesn't trigger my concern.

However, Quickseller isn't stalking me.  He hasn't spend the better part of two years trying to dox me.  So, understandably, I don't have the same emotional reaction that Suchmoon may have towards his continued deceitful methods.

ROFLMAO!  This almost makes me want to start gambling.  Almost.  But I don't know how I would choose.  I know I want the 49ers' score to be higher than POTUS's tweet count, but hell, that's the case on Any Given Sunday, and the other 6 days too. 

---

SF-49; KC-3 

In case I win, please give the merits to someone who needs them more, and is less trollish. 

---

That's actually a very reasonable prediction.  If Bosa can muster up 3 sacks on Mahomes, and the 9ers win, that might be all it takes.  It would be the first time in forever that the MVP wasn't a Quarterback or a Runningback. 

---

I subscribe to the same philosophy, but sometimes it's a hard one to follow.  There's a reason they are merit whales in the first place, but I digress.

You make it sound like we're a posse hellbent on a lynching, but you are misrepresenting the situation quite dramatically.  First, you're neglecting the fact that many of this so-called mob has had these suspicions for well over six months.  Not one of the mob members went looking to tarnish PN7's account, and a neutral review by suchmoon was sufficient for most of us.

So, who spurred this latest bout of drama?  I would suggest the majority of the blame should rest squarely on PrimeNumber7 himself for nominating himself for the "newbie of the year" contest.  None of this would be an issue if he would have been content to build his account remain below the radar.

Even after the drama started to unfold, in the first post I made on the subject I said the following:


So, please stop trying to make this sound like some witch hunt by a bunch blood-thirsty Quickseller hunters.  The facts don't support your hyperbole.

When you buy bitcoin from Coinbase they store it in their own wallets, but apply the amount you purchased to your account.  Think of it like Chase bank and your cash; Chase doesn't build a safe for your cash alone, they store your cash in one big safe with all their clients' cash, but yours is attributed to your account.  Coinbase doesn't share the private keys of their wallets, so you won't have access to them in the way your thinking.

As for whether you can send all the coins you purchased all at once, that depends on how you purchased the coins.  If you buy bitcoin by using your bank account (EFT) they might hold the coins for up to 5 days, until the EFT clears.  If you use a credit or debit card that bitcoin may be available immediately.  If there's a hold on any of the purchases you made, you can wait until the last one is released, then send all the coins in one transaction.

Thank you, ice18.  Repayment confirmed.

---

Hi Devawnm367, additional 0.004BTC sent.  Your total due changes to 0.0106 on February 13th.

Please pay back here: 348XXjbpXwg37JYd8knLnHRSMajLbteSbJ

TxId: ffc5a3f52c75d48871774a04473302f155ac988f84e57368b38c2b7962ef850a

Funny you should ask that.

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.


Apply a Groucho Marx mask, and:

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.


If someone whom I explicitly distrust disguised himself and tricked me into trusting him, I would want to know.  I would also admit my mistake, rectify it, and move on with life.  I wouldn't deflect blame for my error onto those who exposed the disguise.  Not even if those messengers were people with whom I've had a history of disagreements.

Why is it so important to identify who was the first documented accuser?  So far at least five members have come forward and claimed to have independently arrived at the same conclusions, all around the same time.  Why is that so hard to accept?

I've said it before; the evidence is all circumstantial, but in combination an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence can be compelling.  If you disagree, debunk the evidence.  Don't attempt to deflect, and levy an accusation on the person(s) presenting the evidence.  I know you've had long running disputes with both nutildah and suchmoon, but it is possible for them to right from time to time, even if you think they are wrong most of the time.

I was waiting for him to suggest that I may have planted the seed, and be elevated to Jedi status.  No such luck?  Oh well.  I suspect I might be on his "ignore" list as well, since he hasn't responded to me in weeks.

The other possibility is that the newbie figured out his issue (with or without our help,) and just never returned to let us know.  That's what I suspect.  Looking at his profile you can see that he created his account, posted the question, and hasn't logged in since.  He could have come back to read the answers without logging in, but the fact that he hasn't does lend credence to your suspicion.

I too suspected that PrimeNumber7 was an alt of an active member almost immediately after noticing him.  In fact I sent suchmoon a PM on June 20, 2019 expressing my suspicion that it was Quckseller.  At the time I had noticed a few newbie accounts that raised my suspicions, including some that were registered in prior years who had only recently woken up.



Is this the Jedi Mind Trick's equivalent of revers psychology?

I'm disappointed that my application was rejected, but I can't seem find any factors on which to deflect any blame.

1. I'm of Arab ethnicity, but that doesn't mean anything.  There are plenty of Arabs in the campaign, ones who actually post in the Arabic local boards (hmmm?)
2. I'm on DT1, but other DT1 members applied and got rejected.
3. I have earned a bunch of merit.  Again, like others who've been rejected.
4. I like DarkStar_, and consider him a friend and mentor.  I would like to think he likes me as a human also, yet I still got rejected.
5. I have DarkStar_ included in my trust settings, and he's included me in his.

So why did I get rejected?  Could it have been a business decision that isn't influenced by my ethnicity, DT status, merit earned, how friendly I am, or my trust settings?  If DarkStar_ thought that my participation would benefit ChipMixer's advertising campaign, I'm sure I would have been selected, but obviously that wasn't the case.  That's the only factor I can imagine would lead to the decision, and I have no reason to suspect any other.


There are three things that really bug me about this thread:

1. A sense of entitlement.
2. Cries of racism.
3. Inability to accept business decisions for what they are.

@Vispilio, we've had our disagreements, but I don't have anything against you.  I'm sure you're a very helpful member to the Turkish local board, at least it appears that way to me.  But this kind of thinking isn't helping you or the other members of the Turkish board.  Stop trying to make nationalistic or ethnic war out of it.  By doing so you are only adding to the perception that you are incapable of being rational, and indeed it demonstrates poor judgment.

I'm not going to worry about two members' differing views on the works of Nietzsche, but I will touch on the two quotes listed above.

I think it was JollyGood who first suggested that the quote of Vispilio that's directed at me seemed like a threat, but I don't feel threatened.  Yeah, it comes off like Vispilio is being an internet-tough-guy, but it's not the first time I've seen people on the internet succumb the to illusion of being keyboard commandos.  I don't want to come off like I'm excusing Vispilio, but I believe I understand why he behaves the way he does.

I believe this attitude is a cultural phenomenon:  Being a first generation American from an Arab family I've noticed that when aggravated many Middle Easterners speak in hyperbolic terms and exaggerated anger.  It's something I've struggled with my whole life, and in all honesty I've found myself not immune.  I was always encouraged to say what I mean and mean what I say, and to also take the words of another as his bond.  Yet, I had to also learn when to ignore, or minimize the impact of that same person's words in other situations.  Of course the struggle is to distinguish between those situations.

Not unlike sarcasm, this type of hyperbolic rhetoric can be difficult to discern on the internet.  Again, this is not to excuse the behavior, which should be, and can easily be avoided, especially in writing.  It's merely an observation that I cared to share.

He thinks it would be appropriate for you to tag Yahoo62278 with a neutral.

Edit: I see you've cleared that up.  I also disagree.

Wolwoo's phrasing looks odd in English, but it would flow naturally in spoken Arabic, which I imagine is similar to Turkish.



Yahoo62278's participation in managing the campaign's participants has been very helpful the forum, he's done a tremendous job.  He deserves much respect for his accomplishment of minimizing spam.  You're situations are not the same, and therefore cannot be compared.

And like yahoo62278, DarkStar_ can manage his campaign anyway he wants to.  It's his job that's on the line if the ChipMixer campaign is mismanaged, so he takes great care to choose members that will represent his client in the best way possible.

I'm not going to presume I know how DarkStar_ chooses his participants, but if he decided to black list Yobit participants, that's his right.  But as far as I can tell, that's not what he's doing.  He's only blacklisting those who wore the investbit signature.  Again, that's his prerogative.

That's not yahoo62278's job.  His job is stop spammers, not to defend Yobit.  

And the reason he didn't get tagged by the people you mentioned is the same for Vispilio did not getting tagged.  They didn't tagged get because they didn't promote a scam in their signature.  Before we get into the what's a scam and confusing gambling with investment and all that, let's just not.  You and I disagree about that, I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, and no matter how angry you get you will not convince me to change mine.

So, just don't get angry, because it's not your job to defend Yobit either.  You can calmly say you think it's not a scam, and I'll calmly disagree, deal?

You might get your chance at another signature campaign, but probably not until you take Yahoo62278's advice and relax.

Lol!  Well, one reassuring thing is that you can have a sense of humor about it.  I'll chalk that up as one observable instance where you provide concrete, indisputable evidence that you're not a complete sociopath.

Providing BTC address for a trade between niddss (u=2739727) and SergeJeletski (u=2739832)
BTC: 32G1YzdsjspKpDEHzZbxRa4cUg82SK7ypt

I think you're getting hung up on semantics, or maybe not hung up on semantics enough?  I can't tell yet.  Nutildah and suchmoon have provided an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.  

Now I know this isn't a court room, no prosecuters are seeking the death ban penalty, and no one is going to jail for any "crime."  Nonetheless, I think it's fair to allow the same standards of prosecution that are acceptable in the US criminal courts.  Circumstantial evidence is often allowed in court proceedings, and is often enough to make a connection to criminal acts, and will result in a conviction.

If this were a court room, we would have to leave it up to the jury to decide if the circumstantial evidence constitutes "proof."  If you and I were on the jury together, I would find it odd that you insist on focusing on the "circumstantial" aspects of each individual piece of evidence rather than see how all of the pieces of circumstantial evidence tie together beyond what can reasonably be considered "coincidental."

Suchmoon has provided statistically significant circumstantial evidence.  If you wish to play defense attorney, use the same parameters provided by nutildah and suchmoon to show how the evidence is overly coincidental.  But continuing to point to each piece of evidence and insisting that it exist independent of each other piece of evidence is disingenuous, and not very convincing.