First off I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I oppose account sales.  I would venture to guess that the vast majority of times accounts are sold or bought for deceptive purposes.  Even if no scam is intended, the buyer might only want to elevate his rank to earn more in signature campaigns, which some may argue is a mild, or even acceptable deception, it's a deception none the less and I'm opposed to it.

But I'd like to paint a hypothetical scenario where I might actually find the sale of an account as acceptable:

Lets say for example a member has an anonymous account used solely to conduct a service that doesn't require clients to trust the account.  The owner of the account and service decides he no longer has the time or desire to continue operations.  If one were to have such a service that's profitable, valued by it's clientele, and would be sorely missed if it ceased, would it be acceptable to the community if the service along with the account were sold?  If the account and service were offered for sale out in the open, transparent, and continued to operate in a way that didn't require it's client's trust, I think I would be okay with such a scenario.

Obviously, this would be a very unique case and I'm merely trying to open up the discussion (play devil's advocate.)

Theymos has refused to ban the activity, probably in part due to his Anarcho-Capitalist tendencies (I speculate.)  Since I tend to lean right-of-center I understand this, and back his decision.  It's his decision to make, after all.  

So, I present this question to the community:  Is there any scenario you could think of where you would find account sales acceptable?

Meta is a fine place for this topic.  It seems like it's been a while since I've seen this type of thread, they used to be very common last year.

Merit is earned when you make a worthy post.  Participate in the discussions, stay on topic, provide helpful insight and advice and merit will come your way.  Just don't think about it too much, because invariably those who try hard to earn merit wont.  Those who contribute the forum will.  

The instructions asked that the reviews be posted in the announcement thread, where you'll find most of them..

I think the thread was originally posted someplace other than the Russian board, and was likely tagged, moved, then deleted.  Not sure myself, but I was pretty sure what I wrote in that thread was fairly accurate.

I have a strong suspicion that the account I3arni was hacked.  The OP's first appeal to have the account unlocked was written in Russian, but the original I3arni never posted in the Russian board.  Although the account was mostly engaged in shitposting in the Altcoin boards, the level of English was actually pretty decent...

I'm waiting for a response to this:


The evidence is fairly clear what really happened, but why not give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
After all, American's aren't immune to brain aneurysms that cause speech impediments and tourette syndrome.  

First I want to say thank you for the second payment you sent after I posted my review.  Much appreciated that you allowed me to participate.

I do still have a question about this:


When you say the litecoin is "New" it makes me think that you are mining litecoin yourself, and your reserves contain only mined coins.  Is this an accurate assumption?

In response to the first time asked the question you wrote this:


Which sort of contradicts the claim the the litecoin is "new."  If it's coming from an exchange it's not exactly new.  The fact that it comes from an exchange might make it harder to trace, but the bitcoin for which it's exchanged could be traced to your service.  At this point we have to trust that you are indeed purging all session information.



This is actually my bigger concern.  And please don't take this as an accusation, but you are a new member, offering a new service.  It's only expected that some of us are going to be skeptical.  My fear is that, like some other mixing services this is a selective scam in the making.  It wouldn't be the first time a mixer allowed small transactions go through without issue, then the minute some one tries to mix 10, 5, or even just one bitcoin, the accusations of scam start coming out.

I mentioned in my review that a letter of guarantee signed with the address you provide to the sender would go a long way to legitimize your service.  If nothing else it would eliminate your ability to make the claim that the customer sent the bitcoin to the wrong address, which always seems to be the excuse used by the selective-scam mixing services.

I'll be 100% honest; without a letter of guarantee I would never use your service.

What GP thinks he's doing:

---

What GP is actually looks like:

There is no connection between my "trust system choices" and running my business.  Provide evidence to the contrary if you want to make that claim.



By his own admission he isn't a "regular contributing member" is he?



Are we still talking about the OP, or are we talking about your insatiable desire to be on DT1?



Grasping at straws to make a connection, and sounding like a "broken record" (your words, not mine) while you're at it, but I'll entertain a response none the less.

Timelord2067 isn't burning any accounts.  He's 9 votes down in the hole from reaching DT2.  His reviews aren't ruining anyone's account any more than the reviews left by game-protect.  If a campaign manager chose to not allow members into his campaign due to the reviews left by game-protect, who are we to argue?  It's his campaign to run anyway he chooses.  There's no obligation for any campaign manger to allow anyone into their campaign, no matter how much you may dislike the decision.

But, that's not what this is really about, we both know it.  So please, next time you want to attack me for my vote to cast you off DT1 just start a fresh topic about that subject.  Trying to constantly tie it into other topics is a thinly veiled strategy of yours and we're both likely to have our replies removed.

Someone already answered the question:

Those are so cool.  May I suggest a RoboVac, LotV8, and a Bob trading card?  Those would really round out my collection.

My first post in this thread is expressing my opinion that he's wrong in this case, and I don't feel like expressing my honest opinion is "sticking my neck out."  It's just my opinion, like Timelord's review is his own.

But I think you're missing the point of the forum.  By your own admission you only came here to earn a few sats, rather than to be a participant in the community and discussion of bitcoin.  It's my opinion that alone makes you a spammer, regardless how many merit you earn and from whom.


I like that, and although I don't describe myself as a libertarian I tend to agree with the sentiment.  But the trust system isn't a court of law.  No one is going to jail because Timelord leaves a negative review on his trust wall.  We are all adults, and we are all entitled to take every review any way we choose.  

I have my reasons for valuing Timelords efforts.  I run a business here that leaves me very vulnerable to those who abuse alt accounts.  So, yeah I find "his efforts are a tremendous contribution."  I may have my selfish reasons, but I also expressed that "I may not always agree with his findings."  If you're going to quote me, please be thorough, not selective.

Why does your activity have anything to do with Timelord?  His rating is untrusted, so it's not even affecting your trust score.

Look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=778786;dt

In comparison, look how many negative untrusted ratings I have: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2003859;dt
It hasn't affected me in the slightest.  I'm not whining every time I'm called a "scammer" or "hacked account" and it certainly hasn't affected how much time I spend on the forum.

If you come out of the woodwork just to spam the forum only because there's a sig campaign that has low standards, don't be surprised if the rest of the community takes exception to that.  

Lol, this is sort of timely, so I'm just going to quote myself from what I wrote on Timelord's trust page just last week (positive review, mind you:)


I must admit this is one of those situations were I find myself disagreeing with Timelord.  

Intentional mis-spelling of a word like "scammer" by placing multiple Rs at the end is not that uncommon, in my opinion.  It reminds me of how my siblings and I would tease my mother about her accent.  Rolling Rs at the end of a word is still an inside joke in my family.  I recon it's more common among those who's native language is of Latin or Middle Eastern origin, and can therefor look odd to those who's native language is of Germanic origin.

Thank you for the early payment, receipt confirmed.  Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help again, it's always a pleasure. 

I served in the bitblender signature campaign while that ran, which was also managed by Hhampuz.  That campaign had a minimum of 15 as well, but the difference was that it paid per post up to a maximum of 60 (if I recall correctly.)

For the two campaigns Hhampuz started yesterday there's a flat rate payment that requires the minimum of 15 posts to qualify.  I like this approach better.  If you consider the pay rate per post, it's actually more generous than all the other campaigns except ChipMixer.

You answered your own question within your question (bold text.)  If you want Vod to remove his negative feedback, you're going about the wrong way.  I suggest you send him a private message, with a more friendly approach.  You may actually convince him to remove it.

Much better.

Bitcointalk profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2003859
Current amount of posts (including this one): 1730
Amount of merit EARNED in the last 120 days: 212 (including these two)   
SegWit BTC Address for Payouts: bc1q2nwf4njwkpeuyycx5a95nj6mf8m45djdk863xs

---

@Hhampuz, it looks like the signature code is broken.  I'll see if I can repair it.

Fixed now, thanks.

I'll echo the sentiment that things are working well for the time being.  It seems like you and theymos have an amicable arrangement, and from what's been said in the past I don't see that changing any time soon.  Cheers, and thanks for weighing in on the subject.


You bring up a very valid point.  At some point it may behoove those involved to consider how to protect the forum and ensure it's availability for future generations.  I don't know how old theymos and Cøbra are, or how often they go sky diving, or buy black-market vape products, but it's definitely worth having the discussion at some point.

The domain name, physical servers, and database could be transitioned into a trust, or a corporate structure with a board of directors.  If I'm not mistaken the Bitcointalk.org entity exists within the United States, another option could be a Limited Liability Partnership.  I'm no lawyer, so I don't know which of these business entities would best suit the longevity of the forum while keeping it's value in the hands of those who currently "own" it.

@swapmixer,
You're multi-posting, which is against the rules.  You can add all replies to one post, including quotes.  You might have your posts deleted if you keep this up.

Also, don't you realize sending individual transactions the way you're doing is costing you more in transaction fees?  I don't know what wallet you're using, but most give you the option to "pay to many" which will reduce your transaction fees tremendously.  It seems odd that you don't know this.