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. 

Well I admittedly don't have any evidence specific to any of the campaigns Luada runs. My statement is more around my overall distrust of Lauda. I think Lauda is someone who is willing to do anything (regardless of how unethical, immoral, or illegal said action is) to obtain a desired "good" result, including if that means enriching himself in the process.

There are a couple of examples of this, the extortion situation, that you are well aware of, as well as a time when Lauda acted as escrow and was in the process of imposing losses on those he was supposed to be protecting when it turned out his escrow setup was inadequate -- IIRC, there were not actually losses because someone on the escrow team was able to 'strong arm' the alleged scammer/thief into handing over ~$10k (IIRC) in cash to be used to buy BTC via coinbase to repay the investors (which in itself is borderline illegal, but may be worse depending on what exactly was communicated to the alleged scammer, and what exculpatory evidence existed - not just what was known at the time of the recovery).

I would also point out that this, and this (I would disagree this guy is catching people doing anything bad or harmful, but it still falls in lie with what a "sting operation" is) are examples of "sting" operations, while this is not.



Anyway, back on topic, I am not sure I would fully support what you are doing. I would point out that if someone is contributing to conversations (and not talking to himself) in all (most) of his posts, the number of accounts he uses to do this really does not matter, nor does the fact he is getting paid for his signature matter. Sure one could argue that multiple accounts in a campaign violates the "rules" of the campaign, however this rule ultimately harms the advertiser because he gets less "good quality" posts (advertisements) in his campaign, while the campaign manager will benefit because he has the potential to receive more trust ratings when more people participate in his campaigns.

You did indicate you will leave ratings on a case-by-case basis, and if you are leaving ratings because someone is making a lot of crap posts (one liners), I would support your project more, although this is generally something the moderators should ultimately handle (via bans).

I would disagree with this statement. An attacker who is able to access your RAM is almost certain to be able to determine all of your private keys in your wallet regardless of if you are using an HD wallet or not.

An HD wallet is much easier to backup and once you generate the seed (and back it up), you will have all the private keys you will ever need to spend funds from your wallet. With a 'traditional' wallet.dat wallet, you will need to backup your wallet at least once every 100 transactions, or else you will risk losing access to some of your funds, and the process of backing up your wallet is not without risks.

He may be able to calculate the rest of your private keys based on this information. A hacker could also simply get your xprivkey if he is aware of what you type for your passphraise.

If you are not using a HD wallet, anytime you sign a transaction, your wallet.dat will be unencrypted in RAM, or more specifically, the decryption key to decrypt the wallet.dat file will be in RAM, along with the private key(s) of what you are using to sign. If an attacker has access to your RAM when you are signing a transaction, all of your money is effectively stolen.


If you are using an HD wallet, anytime you sign a transaction, the private key(s) used to sign the transaction will be stored in RAM. An attacker could use the private key along with the xpubkey (which will always be in an unencrypted state), to be able to calculate the rest of your private keys in your wallet.


Also, an attacker is likely able to monitor what you enter into your keyboard, so they can get your passphraise anyway, so an attacker could simply copy your wallet.dat and use what you typed as your passphraise.

From a technical standpoint, you are correct. Users use bitcoin because of higher merchant acceptance, and higher exchange liquidity.