They might not be doing this now because there is ~0 consequence to advertising ICOs via PM today, but if advertising an ICO via PM meant the ICO thread gets locked, I would think some would engage in moderate advertising via PM for their competitors.

There seems to be a lot nowadays that the admins are not looking into that they probably should. There is a fairly decent amount of admin related work that cannot be automated. I believe theymos recently said that he is the only one handling the coding behind the forum so he might have been busy with that recently.
Im confused. I thought the problem was that a bunch of newbies have been sending unsolicited PMs to users who are not interested, nor have given any indication they are interested in any ICOs.

I do suspect that a decent number of people might get involved in crypto because they heard about and invested in an ICO, so prohibiting these people from posting in ICO threads might result in these people bringing their insight and conversation elsewhere.

Would it be possible for a competitor to spam the inbox of users of a particular ICO in order to damage that ICO's reputation and get their thread locked?

I suspect it is an orchestrated smear campaign paid for by one of their competitors. They apparently have retained a law firm to go after the guy behind the guy behind twitter.com/bitfinexed

You are mistaken, my friend. We have a lot of people saying USDT is created out of thin air -- this does not necessarily mean any of them actually think this, and I suspect many of them do not.

This is fairly concerning. I would agree that post very well could have been made by a bot. However it will be very difficult to moderate (spot) those types of posts. I would be willing to say you probably would not have spotted this if you had not written, or at the very least interacted with, that post. That person may or may not have a large number of accounts, however at the very least, the likely plan may have been to eventually ramp up his operation to many accounts (he could have been testing his bot, AI, etc.,).

One solution to the spambot problem would be to require a captcha to post until you have made x post, have y activity, or some combination of the two. The units of evil system could be incorporated to influence the x and y values.

No.This would be a horrible idea. Theymos should publicly disclose all of the accounts that Lauda has ever owned, including those he has sold in the past.

Lauda is by far the most corrupt person within the community, and has exactly no morals.

The fact that lauda frequently shills for "core" will likely protect him from the above. Although it could be especially damaging if someone other than theymos were able to disclose the alts of Lauda, including those that participated in shady activity.

There was a DDOS attack last week that involved, among other things, creating hundreds of thousands of accounts in order to overload Bitfinex's servers.

If Lauda really has never engaged in the trading of accounts, I don't see why he would not agree to this.

I suspect that he has engaged in this activity in the past, and probably is doing so currently.

Well having a copper membership does not provide for any protection against getting banned. If you pay $40 (+ a $20 tx fee) for a copper membership, then you will need to earn at least $60 (plus the cost of spending your earnings) just to break even, so users have an incentive to not engage in activity that would result in them getting banned.

I think it is a fairly weak argument to say that I support a cause/viewpoint, and therefore earn money from said cause/viewpoint.

I also support due process, but I am not in the business of defending criminals in court. I support the freedom of speech, but do not profit from selling megaphones.


When you introduce yourself in person, it is a social norm to use your real name (or your nickname). When you post on a discussion board, it is very well known that the "handle" someone is posting from is not that person's real name. I am not under the impression that you are known as "ibminer" to those you interact with every day in person. I am not sure if you use other internet forum or not, but if you do, I think there is a good chance you go by another handle on other forums, possibly those that I may also participate in, it is theoretically possible we have done business on some of those forums under different handles.

Probably because doing so would create a false sense of security, and would create incentives for users to scam instead of selling their account if they need money...

This could work. I might suggest making receiving x merit points in a month be worth y activity, then increase the activity required to obtain each ranking.


I am a little more hesitant to support something like this. While many people use signatures to earn income from advertisements, some people also use signatures to make political statements, support certain causes, etc., and I don't think it would be a good idea to prevent that in certain threads.


When an outsized percentage of users participating in a signature campaign are banned for post quality related reasons, the company behind the campaign should get called out by the forum. This is somewhat similar to what caused the PrimeDice signature campaign to close down, except that long standing users within the community were calling out the harm that the PD signature campaign was causing to the forum. This would give incentives to those ultimately behind signature campaigns to weed out low quality advertisers, as if they don't they will be known as someone contributing to the spam problem.


I would also suggest limiting the boards that contribute to "potential" activity. This would make it more difficult (and less profitable) to farm accounts with low quality posts.

On a similar note as above, I would suggest tweaking the "features" of signatures that each ranking can wear, being more restrictive to those who have lower rankings. We could also increase the amount of activity each person needs, while also increasing the number of ways someone can earn activity (see above for re merit points).


I do like the idea of a paid membership (copper) to allow users to "skip" the process of accumulating activity points to achieve a certain ranking status. If someone buys a copper membership, at the very least, it shows they have a genuine interest in participating in conversations.

That exchange was certainly embarrassing on the part of Gunthar.

It is my understanding the "Gunbot" does not have the ability to withdraw any funds from users accounts. I also understand it uses certain logic, based on input from the user and is not centrally controlled. A (potential) customer may choose to not use his product as a result of this, but I don't think this is evidence of a scam. I have seen many positive reviews by reputable people.

I haven't been following MP for a while. What happened that caused MP to promise to repay certain investors?

I don't think any reasonable person thinks the OP is trying to make anyone believe his single post account created today is his "main" account, especially considering his handle. He is clearly trying to make this report without disclosing his identity.


Anyway, I don't think atriz is lauda for a number of reasons. I would not be surprised however if the OP is an alt of lauda. This is not the first time that this kind of accusation was made against lauda that very quickly falls apart upon (not even) close inspection. 

Reddit on r/bitcoinmarkets and r/bitfinex. Also on email.

For most users, a HD wallet will be better. They will only need to backup the wallet once verses having to back it up at least every 100 (or 1000) transactions.

I could probably help you out, depending on the specific terms you are offering.

I would point out that most major exchanges are equipped to handle a $1 million sale/trade. For example, on Gemini, you can sell 61 BTC at a low price of $16,407, verses a high bid of $16,585, which would net you over a million dollars. Gemini has a $100,000/day ACH limit, however they can wire more money to you for free. That is just over a 1% slippage and Gemini is one of the smaller exchanges (and 1% is probably lower than you would get around here, especially if the buyer would have to wait xx time to get their bitcoin).

Changing from a 10 minute block time to a 2.5 minute block time would require a hard fork, which in-itself would be controversial because it has never been done before. Decreasing the block time would also do little to solve the scaling issue, and may complicate further scaling proposals in the future as if the max block size gets large enough, there will be a higher orphan rate with the lower block generation time.

True, but unless you are specifically targeted as someone receiving a large amount of bitcoin in the future, this probably will not make a difference. If bitcoin disappears from your wallet unexpectedly, you absolutely should not continue using that wallet.