Excuse my ignorance, but what is the purpose of buying a paxful or LBC account?

Can you also explain what you mean by this:

Its real. In order to invest, you need to either have $1 million in net assets, excluding your primary residence, OR have income exceeding $250k for two consecutive years.

BnkToTheFuture has helped various crypto related companies raise money in recent years, including ShapeShift, Bitstamp and bitfinex, and others.

I have no idea why they are raising money. You need to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement) if you want to view the "pitch" on the BTTF platform. It has been speculated Kraken was using Crypto Capital, the same payment processor that Bitfinex entrusted with $850 million, and is unable to access, but I have no idea if this is true or not.

I think you hit it right on the head a few posts up:

There were a number of news stories in the press speculating about tether's solvency, and I am guessing some number of customers were asking for documentation to support solvency so they can account for keeping money in tethers or on deposit at bitfinex to trade with.

Anyone can appeal their ban. I have seen many long time users getting their ban made temporary with a years long signature ban added on.

I would consider plagiarism a very bad form of dishonesty. It is stealing other people's words, and the motivation is often financial in nature, and is also stealing from the person you are advertising for if you are wearing a paid signature, which is often the case. I do not believe someone who clearly plagiarized should be let off without punishment.

Blockchain technology is a good first step to confiscating guns, and should not be used to track ownership of guns. The government would know precisely how many guns you own, and who owns guns. Blockchain technology to track gun ownership is little different than a gun registry.

I like the idea of blockchain technology to solve problems, but it is not something that can solve every problem, and in this case using it would be harmful.

I don't know who cellard is, or anything about him. I am not commenting about him specifically.

I think the assumption that just because someone is a "newbie" that they are young, new to bitcoin, or don't know what they are talking about is just naive.

All being a "newbie" means is they have recently registered. Some people register here after being involved, or interested in Bitcoin for a long time. Some even have worked for crypto related companies for years before registering here.

Being a new user does not mean they are young. My presumption is everyone here is an adult, or a "young adult" in their mid-teens, and everyone should be treated that way, including holding them responsible for what they do. In both high school and college, students are forced to submit their writing assignments/papers into one or more anti-plagiarism platforms, and the expectation is anyone caught plagiarizing will automatically receive a zero on the assignment. College students are taught that plagiarism is grounds for possible expulsion, even if they have spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition.

1 - I would consider a temporary ban plus a years long signature ban a warning. The temporary ban may be redundant if the plagiarism is from a long time ago, but I do understand the idea this. A 1-2 year signature ban will still allow a person to continue discussing bitcoin and crypto and anything else discussed here.

2 - I would not personally trust anyone who is caught plagiarizing. I would consider this a form of dishonesty. See my response to 1

3 - In some cases I believe in lieu of a temporary ban, a user should be allowed to start "fresh" with a new account, but I believe the person should be required to receive permission to do this. This might be appropriate if someone has a decent history here, but there was a more severe problem with what they did to earn a ban. A person is banned because they were breaking rules that were causing problems.

4 - I don't think winning a popularity contest is an effective way to decide who gets a pass. 

If you ask BB&T, or any other bank, if x person or y company has an account/relationship with the bank, they will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any banking relationship. The only exceptions to this is if the customer explicitly allows for such disclosure, or if the bank receives a subpoena, court order, or similar legal process.

You also do not know that "no bank executive wanted to be associated" with the letter because you do not know Deltec's normal processes for producing such letters.

When someone denies an allegation that is disparaging, it is fair to note the denial when discussing the allegation.

Multiple and separate governments claim that they are an arm of the Chinese Government, and a number of elected officials have echoed this. The Chinese government also has a history of subsidizing Chinese companies and of engaging in cyber espionage, and of stealing IP from western companies. All of this taken together makes me believe that Huawei is in fact part of the Chinese Government.

Crypto sometimes can allow you to prevent unrelated third parties from knowing your financial business. However in general if you are doing business with someone, you need to know who they are. I have done face to face deals with people in the past and I always knew their identity, but I would not know the details of their other transactions (except for those who are very bad with reusing addresses but that is another issue).

I am not saying you should trust someone with your identity just because you are trusting them with a few hundred dollars. I am saying you should not trust someone with a few hundred dollars if you are unwilling to trust them with your identity.

I don’t want to comment on if it is safe to trust bittrex with your identity docs or not because this is a decision you need to make based on your own research.

Are you willing to put money into escrow in the amount of what someone would gamble plus the “guaranteed” profit?

Once a company asks for KYC docs, they are not going to allow access to your money without you KYC verifying your account.

In today's day and age, I would not trust any business with any of my money that I would not be comfortable trusting KYC verifying my account with, and I would suggest others use the same criteria. If you would not trust a company with a copy of your passport, why would you trust them with your hard-earned money?

You should consider offering SegWit vanity addresses.

They are much cheaper to use (spend from), possibly by a lot if the cost of transactions from late 2017/early 2018 ever come back.

Huawei is widely believed to be an arm of the Chinese Government by Western/Five Eyes intelligence agencies, although Huawei and the Chinese Government both deny this. It is believed that Huawei equipment contains "backdoors" that the Chinese Government can use to either disable the equipment in the future (cutting off communications), or actually transmit (and/or leak) sensitive information.

In general, this should be considered a good thing.

If the above is true, Huawei will continue to operate with government support, although much less people will buy their phones. Huawei still has access to the open source version of Android.

A bigger concern for me about Huawei equipment is the equipment that supports backbones of communications networks, such as switches, and wireless antenna. 

For clarification, there is no "guaranteed" way to earn a "20% or 30%" or any percent profit while gambling.

This person is giving fake vouches in another thread.

I would tell the OP what I said to the OP in the other thread:

This is not entirely true.

AML and CFT programs are designed to detect money laundering, and track the flow of money throughout the financial system. If you are transacting large quantities of money, you will be asked additional questions about the source of your funds, and the purpose of your transactions. If you exceed certain thresholds, reports will be filed with the government so the government can track money movements. If your transaction history and/or answers to questions about the purpose of your transactions/source of funds are suspicious, a separate report will be filed with the government.

Your script may or may not have made you what you claim, but I am confident your script cannot *exploit* bustadice.

Mathematically speaking, over the long run, you will lose on average the house edge of each bet you make. If the house edge is 1%, and you bet $1, on average you will lose $0.01 on each bet.

The only way you could possibly do anything that resembles exploiting the casino would be if you had a way to learn the server seed before you place the bet in order to calculate the outcome ahead of time. Doing this would be both very unethical and illegal. If you have figured out a way to do this, you should report it to Bustadice and I am sure they will give you a nice bug bounty.

I don't think it is trivial to hack forum accounts. In order to do this you need to exploit some kind of weakness specific to the person.

Even if it was trivial, one might hack a lower rank account to avoid raising suspicion.

This is an example of someone trying to cover up their plagiarism.

This type of plagiarism is difficult to detect, and I would not be surprised if there were other examples that have not been uncovered.

I think if the OP wants any serious change of getting a second chance, he needs to find some examples as to how he has helped or contributed to his local bitcointalk community.

During a financial crisis, nearly all asset types get sold off/liquidated (this is what caused Madeoff's ponzi scheme to get exposed). Although far from a financial crisis, last December in the US, financial markets were selling off, and the crypto markets generally fell when US stocks fell, although there was also some separate issues in the crypto market causing declines.

In 2015/16, I might have had a different opinion, but today, there are many institutional investors that also invest and are affected by other assets and markets, and I believe many of these institutions would sell their crypto holdings to meet liquidity needs caused by turmoil elsewhere.

There are also other problems with Freddie/Fannie("GSE") outside of the issues caused by the CRA. The GSEs were trying to compete with lenders who were packaging loans and selling them into MBS (mortgage backed securities), further reducing their standards than the CRA required.