blazed and hilariousandco

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy. The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign -- I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.   

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.


I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

In re loan shark, I posted above why I disagree with the rating, as I mentioned above, I think someone who leaves a negative rating for a single instance of copy/past posting is looking for a reason to leave a negative rating, and the rating is not about warning others about his behavior. I would find it unlikely that a business would withhold payment over a single post.

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

I am curious why you have had such a change of heart about this. It was not long ago that you would strongly be in favor of trading accounts.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

Thanks.

User kwarta is engaging in copy/past spam.

---

---

Above are two examples of him engaging in this activity.

edit: he is still doing this despite this thread being opened about him. See below for a third example of this made just minutes ago:

Addresses really should not be reused, including addresses that receive the block reward from the coinbase transaction.

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

If you think it is a scam to ask for money to refer someone to information that is free and available to the public, then you would probably also agree that it is a scam to tell a company how many posts a certain group of members made within a certain timeframe, yes? Both involve information available publicly at no (financial) cost.

The only way this would be possible if transactions were only valid up until a maximum block number. This could be implemented and enforced via a soft fork.

The problem with this is that it could result in situations in which the miners are given incentives to orphan blocks.

Yea, many companies are researching how to use less electricity to check "one hash" and have made great strides over the years.

The fact that Bitcoin uses proof of work ("POW") means that finding blocks will be electric intensive, and over time the value of the electricity consumed by the miners will approach the value of the total block reward of the blocks.

If the POW were to be changed to proof of stake (users who hold Bitcoin find blocks), or to proof of something else, then electric consumption may decline.

I would recommend adding the following to your trust list:

You are asking if something you found in a "random" pastebin is true? You do realize that literally anyone can post literally anything with zero filters or verification?

Go ahead and write a 1,000 word post explaining why I should trust that you will repay a 0.8 ETH loan, and I will consider your request.

Collateral?

It sounds like you are trying to defraud someone. This isn’t cool.

This is not even funny to joke about. As someone who lived in charlotte nc when HB2 was in effect I think it is ridiculous that people can think it is okay to force others to recognize them in a way that has no basis in reality, science or truth.

Is “copper member” displayed when someone pays the fee? If so do they retain he title after they have sufficient activity to become a “member”?

I like this idea. It could potentially lead to more strict anti spam measures such as longer time between posts, waiting x time before you can post, being able to only post in x boards, being unable to create threads (in x boards) etc

Why don’t you point out where other exchanges have posted their bank details on their websites? Please and thank you.

One could see this as evidence that bitfinex is a market leader and that many large customers are using their platform. If the USDT was fake, then it’s price would fall below $1 when arbitrators cannot sell their USDT for USD to tether, which has not happened.

If I had to guess, I would say someone with $10mm doesn’t use Gemini because you cannot realistically buy that much bitcoin on Gemini (doing so would effectively clear the order book). If you wanted to buy $2mm worth of bitcoin on Gemini you would lose about 2.5% via slippage based on Gemini’s order book. Buying $2mm on bitfinex would result in less than $50 in slippage (<1%) based on their current order book.