Redundant reports do not count as bad: they are batched as the same outcome. In reality, redundant reports may serve as a way to reduce the waiting time of severe reports, regarding malware or global-level issues. Unclear whether reports are queued or stacked in the same order for all moderators.

---

Suggested timing/modifications for active users: adjust refresh time to 750-2000ms after submitting report to optimize forum delays to "real-time updates" without any excess refreshes. Lowest time between posts/reports is 4 seconds; experimentally a half dozen new pages per second.

I have looked at your other screenshots and none are relevant to the point I had quoted.

One email chain is in Sep 2021, the other continues in Jan 2022 about a 14-day wait, and then ends with something about "you should know why you were muted on dozens of accounts". And then there's the one I quoted with only your replies: what am I missing here?

I don't even know whether your funds were frozen for the reason you specified.

---

I would call it a bit of a stretch to enforce balance freezes that were intended for "funds' safety" to be used to prevent spam. One could make an argument based on the implemented system (i.e. funds can be used to create alts and create more spam) but that would be a flaw of the design to fix and not another level of complexity to add.

---

If there is anything that has not been provided, now would be a good time to do so. Fragments of emails are insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

Whatever the case is, if funds have been returned then the scam accusation is nil - it comes down to a matter of chat restrictions and those have arbitrary enforcements with random discretion. Otherwise, any deposited amount should be returned to the player who will remain muted. That's all.

Chapter 4: Cover Tactics

To draw away heat, advantage players cannot bet perfectly but must disguise their betting behavior by sacrificing some value. In the example of sportsbetting, the team placed their fixed match bets alongside other smokescreen bets on the latest big matches. They hedged their bets perfectly across the team and were undetectable. There were many other techniques, of course, and they had to alternate between them to maintain caution.

I'm not sure how that constitutes as proof. All I am viewing are your replies in an email chain.

I went back to check some of my recorded report history. I easily topped 7000 reports in January and March 2021, so there must be something else. Bear in mind, these figures are from having copied the report history page therefore I had access to it at the time.

I don't think I have ever exceeded ~10K in a month, so your hypothesis has some credence.

(it's also easier to export and report in chunks for future use)

I don't know about you, but most of the time these large sets of qualifying (i.e. good) reports come from users' post histories. Assuming my feedback's number comes from a single session and is not a cumulative sum, that's 6 pages of consecutive spam. At the very least, there would be 20 posts in a row with sufficiently-low average quality to which I would decide to go through your post history.

Long posts are not necessarily indicative of quality, but the reason that I have so many spammers with short posts and one/two-liners on my list is because low-quality posts are generally short. This is especially the case where signature spammers or bounty hunters compete for either (expected) low or unknown (i.e. new alt) rewards - with such a low-margin market, the only way to be profitable is to either spam through multiple accounts and campaigns or to have a low enough cost of living to where posting is considered a "good job". If only they could do the good job in the first place.

There is no problem with users earning money - look at the name of the forum. However, if you think that I have a problem with you (personally or otherwise), then perhaps you should take some time to enjoy the universe instead of your own headspace. The reason you land on this list is because I have confirmed with both my own eyes and the moderation team (via reports) that you are a spammer. In fact, regardless of the reporter, your posts would have likely been deleted!

I could abstain from writing neutral feedback on your trust page, and continue reporting your posts until scores of posts are deleted. Others could do the same. In fact, we are all free to report each others posts should we deem them unnecessary, spam, or redundant: at the end of the day, it's a private forum handled by moderation staff and a (maybe)nevolent dictator. The reason that threads grow to snowballing messes of the same five semi-coherent thoughts all quoting one another in agreement and padded faux-additions of detail is because these posts are ignored. The saturation of spam has grown to such a degree that users no longer see reporting as worthwhile and let spammers get away with posting swathes of bullshit.

So when I go through the typical spam boards and look at people like you posting on multiple threads on page 10+ with some generic reply and I see that your post history continues on with the same pace, or I see that you post nothing but one and two-liners... should I simply say, the forum will be fine fermenting in the septic tank?

Assuming you eat into the true balance before the bonus balance (usually the case, as the converse allows for risk-free gambling esp. if you can cancel) then as long as the expected return to wager through the turnover is higher than the reciprocal of the bonus multiplier.

For example, if the house edge of 1%, accumulated over 40x wagers produces an expected return of 66.9%, then a deposit bonus with an extra 49.48% would be break-even.
  In other words, if you have some return R, 1/R multiplies together to produce 1.

---

Of course, a casino must be profitable. I haven't checked any bonuses on my own, but I doubt they would be particularly +ev, or if they were, it would be akin to the marginal benefit of rakeback or (done carefully) lossback.

For the deposit bonus I found on the site:
 At a 35x wagering coefficient/turnover, a 2.7% edge and 100% bonus (i.e. 2x multiple), you have an expected return of 38.36%. You would have needed a 160%+ bonus, as this bonus is effectively as expected: a -ev promotion. Overall, the expected return is 76.73%. Though, for plenty of gamblers, house edge doesn't matter in the first place and a larger bankroll to start results in a longer session (of 'potential' rewards).


So if you enter the bonus, you're subjected to the 23% house edge if you play it all the way through and/or have a positive return. Even if you don't and if your balance is below where you started, then your main balance is down. Kind of a lose-lose situation, unless I'm mistaken somewhere: high edge or guaranteed losses. Feel free to correct me.

If you assume some cataclysmic scenario, then what would that imply about the nature of Bitcoin's price?

If 'keys are open' becomes reality, then it's not a matter of liquidating the collectibles and selling the Bitcoin, since that would be no different from doing today's equivalent of password-crack "hacking". Who would be there to buy it? Wait for your Bitcoin current edition is forked a couple more times, probably with a medley of shitcoins alongside it, if you are expecting anything. Though at any point you would have to deal with consensus regarding the changes, implementation, and arbitrary snapshot times if forked post-(mass-)quantum.

To be, or not to be, that is the question

Will it exist or not?

What are you trying to accomplish? Is there a goal here? How would this handle edited quotes or quotes that are snippets of the full post?

I'm sure most discretion would involve applying Occam's razor to the user's intent.

Most of the time, pasting a link is easy enough (and the easiest option). If it seems obvious enough that the user intends to credit something to another, then contextual crediting is no different from sourcing something else.

Doing something in an obfuscated way means you have little intention to share it: that seems contrary to someone wishing to credit others' work.

If someone contacts you without 2FA but with access to email, they could use further information from any cross-linked websites from that address, possibly including things like your B2B withdrawal screenshots and some other information. It's not ideal that they would ask for this and then more, instead of what would have been necessary for a threshold of confidence, but you know what they say about unknown information.

Suppose your email was compromised for just a few hours: would they have enough to expose your Stake account?

With some subjective standard that we try to implement as objectively as possible, just like the regular DefaultTrust trust list.

Only, flags are good because you can properly oppose/affirm individual feedback from users instead of having to include all of their feedback.
Where they aren't that great is in the limited usage of them being post-scam for the flags that can be displayed to most users (non-Newbie/7-day).

If you are able to pragmatically determine that a user is appropriately representing the will of some group, that's all. Though, in application, I would probably extend the threshold a touch more due to the nature of forum limitations.

All those links you've previously posted seem unrelated. If the only link is based on their prose, then anyone could pretend to be an alt of another or seem similar enough under the right circumstances.

This is the only instance where you have alts in certainty:

---

But that too is unrelated to the other random users.

where were you on Bitcoin Easter?

An interesting stat to measure would be the percentage of posts that have been deleted, either across the forum or (better) within each board.

It feels as though certain boards would have a number 20%+ or higher, were all the spam posts to be reported.

In general, redundant feedback should be commonplace: with a much greater pool of DefaultTrust users, this increases reliability and permanence of the feedback when multiple users underscore the same action. Call it consensus or community voting, but if certain feedback is more "agreeable" than other sorts that are opinionated or complex, then it would be advisable to maintain that throughout DT cycles and to increase the subjective "weight" of the feedback.

The feedback comments should be simple enough. Spamming users will generally reply to a thread with little thought, usually using some simple and vague language and ideas to pad their posts and create a sense of quality, despite the substance being nothing more than a vacuous chasm of words.

so is this going to end on page 3 or 30 as everyone replies "stop replying"?