I would not equate using the ability to keep an active thread locked to a hospital. Even if I was, I have not been to a hospital in the last 6 months, but many other people have. Likewise, I am not asking how many times you have used this feature, I am asking how many times anyone has used this feature in the last 6 months.

If 6 months is too short a timeframe, how many people would you estimate has ever used this feature for your stated purpose?

I am merely trying to gauge the cost of removing this feature. If there is some "observable metric" that shows the cost would be high, I would gladly admit my idea is not a good one.

I don't think there is any coin that is ever "set to rise soon" with any reasonable certainty. If there was, it would have already risen because many people would be buying it.

What you are describing is having a criteria in which coins will be purchased and sold as a trading strategy. You could decide to sell a coin if it raises above a certain technical indicator, or has risen by a certain percentage amount, and as a stop loss, you could sell if it meets some other criteria. After it has been sold, you can purchase the coin back if it meets some technical criteria, rinse and repeat. This could be automatic or done manually.

This sounds like something that would be fun for me.

How many people would you say have used how many locked threads to only "serve as a notice" to others in the past 6 months?

You should not try to hyper regulate the marketplace, but some regulations can be good if the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks, and they do not unnecessarily restrict freedoms.

The two features are different, but they serve a similar purpose. In reality most using a transnational thread are not going to have the ability to do anything they could not previously do if the ability to have an active locked transaction thread is removed.

Your explanation for the need to keep the ability to have an active locked transaction thread is that no commentary is needed, and the threads purpose is to only serve as a notice to others. A user can achieve the same result via a self moderated thread with a note to not reply to the thread, and deleting any replies they get. Frankly, I have seen very few "public notice" threads, and I cannot recall the last one I have seen.

You should care about the integrity of the marketplace because if it is perceived to lack integrity, any reputation you have earned becomes worthless, and some people who might have traded with you could decide to not trade at all because they observed many other bad experiences.   

If the two features serve the same purpose, why not allow only self moderated threads, and not the locking of an active marketplace thread?

The self moderated thread would provide a warning when many posts from many people have been deleted, and the locked thread will not. Sure scammers will adopt to new methods if one is neutralized, but this does not mean known methods should not be neutralized if it would not harm any one acting legitimately.

Local Bitcoins has many employees located in the US and in jurisdictions the US can exert pressure over. If a company such as Local Bitcoins were to help a company evade sanctions, it would be sanctioned, and would be unable to use the banking system, including to pay for hosting, payroll and the like. The US could also sanction its employees, who would be unable to use any bank.

In short, PR is the last thing local bitcoins would be worried about if it was on the OFAC sanctions list, or was otherwise sanctioned by the US. It would fail almost immediately.

According to lingholic, a vocabulary of 3,000 words will cover 95% of "common texts" and the average adult has a vocabulary of about 20,000 words.

If you take the 3,000 words that make up 95% of "common texts" (books, news articles, blog posts), and square this figure, there are 9 million possible word combinations. This means if you write two random words, there is a 1 in 9 million chance someone else will write those same words also writing two random words. Granted, some of the rules of English grammar dictate that certain words cannot be used after other particular words. I believe there to be possibly be about 5 million posts in this forum, if I am understanding how the "msg" number works in SMF correctly.

Some words are used more frequently than others, and some words will be used more frequently when discussing a particular topic/subject. I think it is pretty unlikely that two people will write the same thing, with the 2nd person writing 10 or more words exactly as the first person wrote without ever interacting with the 1st person's post.

There are certain common phrases that are okay, but I have not seen anyone banned for using a common phrase. 

A referendum with 52% of the vote means whichever side got 52% (in this case the Brexit side) won the referendum, and has prevailed.

I disagree with your conclusion that Brexit will cause much harm to the UK economy, but even if this was true, leaving the UK and having this harm is within its citizens rights.

The UK held subsequent elections after the Brexit referendum and the party whose platform is "Brexit" has won these elections.

I think it would be okay if a hard Brexit is done so long as a new trade deal is done quickly, and this may be what it takes.

Teresa May is very anti-Trump, and it does not surprise me to see she is unwilling to accept multiple election results all pointing to the UK wanting to leave the EU. There was the Brexit referendum in 2016 that obviously showed the UK people wanting to leave the EU, and multiple general elections in which the pro-leave party was elected to power.

I don't think a "no deal" Brexit is necessarily the best way to leave the EU because this would make it more difficult for those in the UK to trade with and conduct business with those in the EU. The best solution would be one that includes few or no trade barriers between the UK and EU, including tariffs, regulations, and government subsidies. I don't think it is reasonable for any deal to include zero regulations between the UK and EU, but any deal with few regulations would be good. 

I would consider a corrupt employee one mode of completing a Sim Port attack. The end result is still the same, that is a third party can control a person's cell phone number and receive calls/texts to that number, that is not authorized to do so.

If a single employee helps with Sim Port attacks many times, the carrier's internal controls should detect this. If an employee, or a manager over a group of employees helps with a Sim Port attack a small number of times infrequently, it would be more difficult to detect. 

If you have income, and your DTI (debt to income ratio), is not too high, and you meet other criteria, there is a good chance you will qualify for a signature loan at a bank.

A bank is better equipped to collect and go after a borrower who defaults on a loan than a lender here would. As such they can make loans to people who would not get a loan here.

I would encourage you to create an account at BTTF and broach the question about what happened. I don’t think they could reasonably ignore the question if you bring up the issues you are talking about.

I wasn’t able to find any fairly recent posts on here or Reddit when I previously was searching for posts you described. IIRC most were not long after the acquisition.

Even though they were saying they were going to pay that specific class of shareholder, I am unsure they were legally required to do so, absent a promise to pay them.

I am not aware of Localbitcoins banning trading in any country except for Iran, which I believe is most probably due to sanctions against the Iran government.

It is my understanding it is BitPay (a payment processor that helps businesses accept bitcoin and convert it into local fiat) has banned using their service in the countries referenced in the OP. The article OmegaStarScream referenced actually explains the reason why they banned using their service from certain countries:


The article also says they cannot do business with any person or business based in a country sanctioned on the OFAC list. BitPay should also be checking the OFAC list against specific individuals/businesses they are doing business with, even if not based out of a banned country; they might do this even if they don't specifically say they do in the article.

I think most likely he either does not have the personal documents he claims to be selling (he is scamming), or he is selling stolen, or forged documents. There is a very small, maybe less than 1% chance he has purchased these documents from his friends, acquaintances, and/or business contacts who all legitimately own the documents. 

The small chance the documents are legitimately obtained is why the thread will stay up. If the OP of the thread referenced admits to selling stolen documents, the thread should get taken down.

Selling a stolen document would not be scamming by itself, it could be if he were representing the document was not stolen, but this is not the point.

I would refer you to this rule: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.msg51405#msg51405
The selling of stolen goods would be illegal and cause the thread to be removed.

I told the OP it would be better to confirm the documents are stolen because I believe this would get the OP of the thread in question banned and the thread removed. Anyone buying personal documents at all knows they are buying from a shady person, and anyone buying from someone selling 100 people's documents knows they are dealing with a very shady person.

This is not true. I have a ShapeShift account that I use as I wish, that is verified with my US address.

They even have a section in their TOS for CA residents:

https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country_or_territory#Alphabetical_index_to_classifications

I could not find anything for Bangladesh, but the rest of the countries appear to have banned bitcoin/cryptocurrencies in one way or another.
Indonesia has banned payment gateways from accepting bitcoin according to the above wiki article.

So this script will not *guarantee* whoever is using to win "20%-30%". Good to know

Trump does not need anyone's permission to pardon anyone. His problem is that if he pardons someone that many congressmen are opposed to receiving a pardon, they may stand in the way of his agenda out of spite. This is why many presidents pardon many people after the presidential election in which they are no longer up for election in; lame duck sessions are often very unproductive, and he will not be harming his party in an election.

I don't think Manning would have gotten his sentence communed if he had not been a trans.
This is partly why I believe Trump will want to pardon Assange, in addition to it being the right thing to do. I think trump knows an Assange pardon will be difficult politically, and is hoping the SC will throw out the charges and/or conviction on first amendment grounds.

Please see this article on address reuse and privacy:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse

Not reusing addresses absolutely increases privacy, and gives plausible deniability as to ownership of prior inputs that can be tracked back to bad/illegal activity.

Your solution is still flawed because it requires all employees of a carrier to not be corrupt, and to follow policy to the "t".

A store employee can write down they checked ID, but checking a box in a computer does not guarantee this happened. This would also create many negative experiences for customers who do not live near their phone carrier's store locations.