But at the same time the dude GETS bitcoin.
Clearly he does not. He just called censorship-resistance and privacy "bad ideas." And he is right about the bit with trusted layer two like Square. And lightning is a hobbyist platform today. Square/CashApp is an actual working product people use. And before you sling at me too hard... I run 2 lighting nodes.
He's wrong about LN as it is not a competitor of PayPal and Square! It was not developed for that purpose, and its not a centralized entity, much less a corporation. His comparison of LN with the other two is farcical at best and reflects an extremely poor understanding of bitcoin at worst. |
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is saying that Ognasty can't be trusted
Dozens are saying he can't be trusted. Not totally on topic but I'll say it. I don't trust him. Using the treasury's private keys to claim a shitcoin without telling anybody about it is pretty damn untrustworthy. You can say whatever you want about me, I've never profited dishonestly off the forum, especially to the massive tune that Og has... or as he calls it, "building off bitcoin."  |
|
|
|
You will change your mind once some newbie finally decides to record a video / take a screenshots of this scamming user deal process. Mark my words here.
OK, well, anything can happen. |
|
|
|
I don't need to know them to know they have no business being on DT.
This is such an ignorant statement, I find it hard to believe anyone could take your position on this issue seriously after reading it and discovering you are a moron. OK, well, you've clearly run out of things to say, and I suspect you still don't understand the difference between a trust rating and a trust list. You've had however many years and never figured it out, perhaps you're simply not capable of understanding it. All the more reason why you shouldn't be on DT. |
|
|
|
Just look through these "untrusted feedback". - https://ibb.co/Phx2BXdThere are users with more than 1 post giving the feedback to Vareole for scamming. The users who has earlier dealed succesfully with other members. Why everyone suddenly should say he is scammer? Most of the guys around here is for long term, not just for one account / product / service. If product was alright, it would not ever happen. Isn't it weird that all of the users accusing Vareole "just for fun"? Isn't it weird that Vareole selling same products as earlier exit-scammed Walmart34 or Varpenter with same topic style? He gathers his "vouches" by his free VCCs giveaways and then scamming for hundreds. "Untrusted feedback" is untrusted for a reason. I have almost a hundred untrusted aka bullshit feedbacks. They mean nothing other than I've fucked up the operations of many butthurt scammers over the last 5 years. I wear each one as a badge of honor. Why "everyone suddenly should say he is a scammer" with zero net evidence is because they themselves are butthurt scammers. I've never traded with Vareole before, but I do know that anybody can and does say anything and none of it means jack without supporting evidence. If people are dumb enough to trade with low level accounts off-forum, get scammed and then not record the slightest bit of evidence of what happened, that's really on them and they need to consider it a lesson. As far as your Wamlart34 comparison is concerned, you need to take it upon yourself to produce examples of stylistic similarities between the two. You can't just say their style is the same and then not give examples of what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
gosh, just use your common sense.
Common sense dictates the presentation of evidence, of which there is none. browse through old topics of walmart34 / varpenter and compare them with vareole and you see too much coincidences and same schemes.
I don't know enough about walmart34 to make a just comparison but perhaps @sandy-is-fine will have something to say about this. it is shame new users are getting scammed by this cunt just for his one +1 rating from DT member while it was probably some 20$ trade deal which anyone can complete without problems to get +1 trust and start scamming for hundreds daily.
Are they really, though? Again, there's no evidence of this. No screenshots, no PMs, no transaction IDs, nothing. |
|
|
|
Everyone I added I trust their ability to use the trust system.
For four of those, your decision is based on nothing discernible to the outside world (except for the fact that they left you a positive trust). Just because you may not know them as well as I do from the information you have available to you nutilduh, doesn’t mean you can accurately speculate what my motivations are.
I don't need to know them to know they have no business being on DT. |
|
|
|
...
I find this kind of thread is a bit extorting to me as I do not want to see me on top of the self scratch list. As I was years ago.
Here's the thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand about the trust system, the difference between a trust rating and a trust list inclusion: - If you trust somebody, then leave them a positive trust.
- If you trust their ability to use the trust system correctly, then include them in your trust list.
If mikeywith fits the second category in your opinion, then by all means, add him to your trust list! What Og was doing was adding users to his trust list who haven't left trust ratings in years, left only a trust rating for Og, or never built a custom trust list... therefore, there's no discernible reason why anybody should add them to their trust list! Its quite obvious he was adding them on the basis that they left him a positive trust, and making them DT ups his own trust score, which is pretty cheeseball maneuvering. Just because you trust somebody's ability to execute trades faithfully on-forum, it does not mean that they have good judgment when it comes to use the trust system. Someone could be highly trustworthy and a salt-of-the-earth person IRL, but they might have terrible judgment of others and leave crap trust ratings. It happens quite a bit actually. |
|
|
|
This is the only definition of plagiarism that matters: Common rule violationsThese are the most common rule violations that newbies make. There are other rules than these. - Plagiarism: If you copy some text from somewhere, then you should have a good reason for it, and you must link to the source. Doing otherwise is plagiarism. Changing a few words around doesn't matter. If we find that you plagiarized, then you absolutely will be permanently banned, even if we find it years after you did it.
Copied text from somewhere: check. Has a good reason for it: check. Link to the source: check. Ergo, Ratimov did not commit plagiarism as defined by the admin of the forum. Any case to be made that Ratimov should still be punished should be based on evidence that other users have been banned for plagiarism even after including the source, which AFAIK has never happened. Lauda and cryptohunter, on the other hand, both committed plagiarism according to these standards. It's pretty clear if you are able to set emotional judgment aside. |
|
|
|
Now the real bet contract: suchmoon's address: 18pTKHyCFyr5Gk3LHN4wKke1hUaT3wUnjb
eddie13's address: 1vvSrTFiQY7akwbsv3iYPPe9mR3DsEbff
suchmoon agrees to pay 0.1 BTC to eddie13 if Donald J Trump wins the 2020 US presidential election, and eddie13 agrees to pay 0.1 BTC to suchmoon if Donald J Trump does not win the 2020 US presidential election.
Decision logic:
Election result is considered decided by the Electoral College meeting. If the Electoral College elects Donald J Trump the president of the US following the 2020 US presidential election eddie13 wins the bet, in any other case suchmoon wins the bet except for the draw conditions listed below.
Conditions for a draw (neither side pays the other side):
If there is no presidential election in 2020.
If Donald J Trump is not on the ballot in at least 26 states.
If the Electoral College doesn't meet by midnight January 31, 2021.
Additional terms:
EC decision is final regardless of popular vote, pledged electors, unfaithful electors etc.
No presidential election in 2020 (martial law, martians invading, etc) means a draw.
Donald J Trump not running for any reason (primaried out, dead, impeached, etc) means a draw even if he wins via write-in.
Any other candidate getting elected (democrat, republican, third party, etc) means suchmoon wins.
If Donald J Trump is elected but doesn't get sworn in (dies, goes to prison, moves to Slovenia, etc) eddie13 wins.
Signed 2019-12-09 This thread will be officially 1 year old in a day or two. Even though the election is over (its over and has been for weeks) and suchmoon won, this is what we have to endure for 6 more weeks: Dec. 8, 2020: Deadline for Resolving Election Disputes. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results must be completed by this date...
Dec. 14, 2020: Meeting of the Electors. The electors meet in each state and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Each elector votes on his or her own ballot and signs it...
Dec. 23, 2020: Deadline for Receipt of Ballots. The electors' ballots from all states must be received by the president of the Senate by this date. There is no penalty for missing this deadline.
Jan. 6, 2021: Counting of the Electoral Ballots. The U.S. Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes.
Jan. 20, 2021: Inauguration Day. The president-elect becomes the president of the United States. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspxWonder if the outcome of the Electoral College meeting will be known on Dec 14 or if we have to wait until Dec 23. |
|
|
|
|
This is interesting except for the Van Eck report was released in August... Why make a story about it now?
|
|
|
|
Thank you for clarifying.
One question remained unanswered - what was the transaction on December 2 from the BCHA wallet... Why they happened.
OK, so what happened was you made a BCH transaction on Nov 22 and BCHA got sent along with it -- they even have the same hash number: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/c715c4d116e8135af7a1b63015ba144885b1fb694da40be81f77e783d24b49f8https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-abc/transaction/c715c4d116e8135af7a1b63015ba144885b1fb694da40be81f77e783d24b49f8However, the mirrored BCHA transaction wasn't actually confirmed until Dec 2 as they weren't finding blocks for quite a while. The next transaction, made Dec 7, also has the same hash number for both chains. This means that whatever address you sent the 98 BCH to also has 98 BCHA. And, if I understood correctly, I need to create 2 identical receiving addresses for BCH and BCHA in some wallet - and send there a transaction from Trezor (I don't think they will make any solution for that).
Sure, if you have control of both private keys (BCH and BCHA private keys), then that should be fine. Trezor will eventually come up with a better solution -- it might be worth waiting until they do, and even checking their website now to see if they have a new release. You're likely not their only customer having issues. |
|
|
|
1. There was 108 BCH coins on my Trezor wallet. 2. 13 November I sent them to my Bitcoin ABC wallet 0.22.6 to get both coins after fork. 3. After fork, November 22, I saved wallet.dat from Bitcoin ABC 0.22.6 (the balance was 108 coins). 4. On November 22 I sent 108 BCH coins back to Trezor at address: qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u. Here is my current balance on Trezor: https://take.ms/QiTvv4. Two days ago I installed a BCHA client: Bitcoin ABC 0.22.8 (BCHA Network), took the wallet.dat file from step 3 and saw that in the history of this client on December 2 my BCHA was sent to qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u - but I did not do it! Now I understand I have 108 BCHA somewhere - but I don't know how to access them. PS Thanks God, everything is OK with my BCH coins on Trezor. PPS yesterday I sent a little bit of BCH from my Trezor to Binance... Transaction 4e774f6354833522bb18b2b67fbb3c87dadeb2371b289f5b6074c65f1f7de894 and as I see it, the transaction was duplicated at BCHA! facepalm Aha! Here's the problem: Trezor can't tell the difference between BCH and BCHA and sends both coins with one transaction (it appears as one transaction to you and Trezor but in reality its 2 transactions). So wherever you sent your BCH, that's where your BCHA went as well! The timestamps are off because BCHA went a long period of time without finding a single block; other than that they are the same in BCH as they are for BCHA. So wherever you sent your BCH post-split, you sent BCHA there as well. With the exception of your microtransaction to Binance, all your coins should be in your control. I wouldn't send anything else from Trezor until they get their shit together, lol. |
|
|
|
The heroes of Bitcoin don't need exposure. But I don't see why Saylor should be painted as a villain. We're all happy when big buyers are all hot and heavy on Bitcoin, aren't we? Regular Joe's always going to be there, growing in stature, they can (try to) manipulate all they want but I don't think it's sinister.
Well, he flat out said he hates the ideals that Bitcoin was founded upon. That's a good reason to paint him as a villain, if one were so inclined. And you didn't just call a billionaire a "Regular Joe", did you?? This is who you are dealing with: In March 2000, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought charges against Saylor and two other MicroStrategy executives for the company's inaccurate reporting of financial results for the preceding two years. In December 2000, Saylor settled with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing by paying $350,000 in penalties and a personal disgorgement of $8.3 million. As a result of the restatement of results, the company's stock declined in value and Saylor's net worth fell by $6 billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._SaylorHe'll obviously say or do anything in the pursuit of even more money. A bit of a ridiculous human being if I do say so myself. He cares about Bitcoin as much as Donald Trump cares about America. Make of that what you will. |
|
|
|
I am trying to make a point here that those who sent merit to that topic, never thought that was not crafted in such a way so that it looks like OP's own contents.
If I see sources underneath a post, quite often that's enough for me to skip meriting it as I don't have unlimited merits and prefer wholly original thought. I don't have a problem with those who do merit such posts. If they find the information valuable and wouldn't have seen it if Ratimov hadn't posted it, that's all that really matters. We're not a literary forum, we're a forum about bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Dude. Look at your own screenshot: its telling you that you have 10 BCHA alongside your 10 BCHN. They are both governed by the same private key, which you will need to import to a BCHA-specific wallet, which can likely be downloaded from the Bitcoin ABC website. Trezor was one of the few companies to outright support BCHA and not offer support for BCHN, but apparently they came around on Nov. 16th and changed their software. You may have to update your Trezor if you haven't since then.
Sorry for disturb. If you have a minute axplain me please. Now a have 108 BCH and 108 BCHA on the same address: https://monosnap.com/file/RQBDMztCeqBHGyP49lSWE5WFgSc3LLMy BCH on my Trezor. But i haven't access to BCHA and don't know where it is. Help me please with this. Aslo I have no idea who sent all my BCHA coins from my cold wallet Bitcoin ABC 0.22.8 (BCHA Network) to this address: qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u It was at Dec, 2 whet I not installed Bitcoin ABC 0.22.8 (BCHA Network) software yet. Its okay buddy. You have legitimate questions and want an answer. I might not be able to provide it but let's take a look. First of all, in your screenshot, you are showing outdated coin balances, one for BCHN (BCH) and one for BCHA. Your first screenshot was accurate and reflects your true balances, this second one is old. Also keep in mind the network split happened on 11/15. Let's look at the BCHN wallet first. You had 10 BCH on 11/15. You received 98 BCH on 11/22 and sent them on 12/7, and now have a balance of 10 BCH correct? Looking at the BCHA wallet: Aslo I have no idea who sent all my BCHA coins from my cold wallet Bitcoin ABC 0.22.8 (BCHA Network) to this address: qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u Buddy, that is your address! According to you, anyway: It looks like you were sent 98 BCHA along with 98 BCH on 11/22. The BCHA transaction was confirmed 10 days after the BCH transaction (12/2). If they made a single transaction it was broadcasted to both blockchains somehow (lack of replay protection I assume). Compare these two address histories. This one is for BCH: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/address/qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u?_type=addressThis one is for BCHA: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-abc/address/qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u?_type=addressYou can see they go on separate paths starting 11-21. Answer me this before I go any further: Are you supposed to have 10 coins each for BCH and BCHA at qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u, like you currently do, or are you saying your coins were stolen from... one blockchain or both?? Don't exactly understand what the problem is. |
|
|
|
They simply join just about any new bounty campaign that shows up, and then hope that out of dozens or hundreds few will bring them few bucks. Most of them are lazy and don't have any skills or interest in crypto, and none of that is needed to share tweets and facebook posts.
Welp, so long as somebody decides its a good idea to keep recruiting bounty hunters to advertise various shitcoin projects to each other all day long, the cycle will continue infinitely. I really don't understand how running a bounty is the least bit profitable knowing bounty hunters will always do the minimum amount of required work to get their tokens... A long time ago when I was involved in an ICO, I checked our website analytics pretty regularly and determined bounty hunters were barely driving any traffic to our website. I know that there's more to it than that, like getting out brand recognition and stuff, but bounty hunters just advertise to themselves all day, like they do here in Altcoin Discussion, on Facebook and Twitter (its easy to get 5,000 FB friends or Twitter followers if you're all bounty hunters and you all follow each other). Anyway, weird market forces are beyond my control. |
|
|
|
|
Not plagiarism. He referenced the sources at the end of the post (as was noticed in post #2 of this thread, yet here we are on page 2).
Is there an example of someone who has been banned for plagiarism after including sources in their post? If you can find that, that would be a convincing argument that a new standard needs to be developed. However, it would appear that we are good with the standards we have now.
As far as the whole CM campaign angle is concerned, Ratimov works harder than most people here and I can't think of many more deserving of a spot in the campaign.
|
|
|
|
This guy thinks institutional investing may offer natural protection of bitcoin presumably because gov't will be less inclined to mess with them as compared to retail investors. He also thinks mass adoption won't occur until btc becomes the worldwide monetary standard. https://cointelegraph.com/news/institutions-will-protect-bitcoin-from-government-overreach-erik-voorheesIn Voorhees’ view, the real surge in institutional interest will occur near the peak of the next bull market when not owning Bitcoin will inflict reputational damage.
He's on to something here, but I'm not sure its for the reason he thinks it is. With large institutions in play, there may be a natural “bulwark” against government overreach. This is only because these giant companies have lobbyists whereas retail investors don't. |
|
|
|
Let's address the portion of the post that actually matters: I care about expanding my network and the logical place to start is with those who I have personally dealt with and/or know in real life.
Not really. The logical place to "start" (you've had a custom trust list for years which you alter on a somewhat regular basis, so you're not really "starting" anything) is by adding people who you feel make good use of the trust system, not those who you've personally dealt with in real life (that's what trust ratings are for). Surprised you never learned the difference. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
