I should do that more frequently than I do, I would guess there are more than just two examples that need to be addressed.  We all evolve through out our journey on this forum.

However, out of the two that you referenced the first one is fresh in my memory and I think it's pretty darn accurate.  I don't see any need to revise it, other than maybe reference the thread where he wanted to sell use as collateral a $250 iPhone for a $500 loan.  The second one you referenced I agree it seems rather weak, so yeah I'll take a look at it.



I'll take a look as time permits, and let you know in PM if I think anything needs to be reviewed.  No need to pour salt on old wounds out in public.

Let's not say anything other than what's observable: You're a fucking moron if you think three's a snowball's chance in hell that you're going to get a single satoshi from anyone here.  People have been trying to beat trade markets since the existence of trade markets, and who among us is going to believe that some inarticulate blow-hard actually did so?  And who's going to believe that someone who's beaten the market is going to share his secrets with strangers on the internet?  Why don't you start with one messily dollar and make a million by the end of the month?  That's what would happen if what you're claiming was at all possible.

Stop the foolishness with all your alts, already.  It's gotten really tiresome.  Imagine if you put half of the effort into something productive instead of trying to scam the lenders of this forum.  You might actually earn a thousand dollars in a month, no scam needed.

Are you going to bump every old thread that's ever mentioned rby just so you can spam links to the THREE threads you've created about him? 

God you're a pathetic attention-whore drama-queen.  Maybe you ought to get a dog, they like to give their humans tons of attention.

Yeah, we don't deserve the generous offer you made to share your skills.  We have such low IQs that even someone as smart as you can't convince us to ignore our own risk mitigation efforts.  We're just hopeless, I guess.

Best to fuck off propose your offer to some other suckers investors far more deserving.

I think you need to check ninjastats before making such erroneous claims.  He's written over 500 posts, but over 40% have been deleted.   

The GPG message has also been confirmed as being signed using the quoted fingerprint:

Accepted.  As discussed in PM I'll send the funds this evening, my time.  I'll update this post with the transaction id once I have it.

Thanks again for the request.

---

ETA: sent, b69a7bb708e99631e13d2a07f742a2e05417f51ce730ba3a32d883ceed8f0312

Sorry, I missed that post you wrote to The Sceptical Chymist, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.  As for tagging alts of known scammers, of course I'm in support of that, given the evidence linking the accounts is compelling enough that a reasonable person would be left without a doubt.  I left that post in Poker Player's thread rather brief on purpose, because there seems to be this attitude among some DT members than anyone with an undisclosed alt is up to something nefarious.  I find that assumption simply absurd.

Of course it's a scam, there's nothing real about the OP's claims, not even the gender.  Also, I'm sure it's just another alt account of ps34 (aka elmanchez, don't ask me how I know, I just know.)  Not even AI can hide the entitlement and petulance.

But you're so confident in your ability to make 90% per day?  I'll tell you what, "lend" me a thousand dollars, and use that to start your leverage routine.  If you make over 80% per day (on average) you can split the proceeds with me, minus the original $1k that I "borrowed" from you, of course.

That way, psychologically for you you're leveraging "someone else's money," and psychologically for me, if you lose all "my" money, you can fuck off.

Do we have a deal?

You've been a member of this forum for almost 4 years, you've made over 6k posts, and have yet to earn a single merit.  But you think it's the recently exposed red-tags that are keeping you from having work opportunities?  Wow.

They are in the order of user id numbers, but those are omitted from the report.

Just copy the list and paste it into a spreadsheet.  You can paste the old and the new lists side by side, compare them as they are or arrange them alphabetically if you like.

Since you're issuing the CLI commands as a different user than the "user" (system) running the process, it'll look for the credentials of the user in the user's home directory.  The same thing happens on Linux, it's not just a Windows thing.  On my Linux servers I run the bitdoind process using a system user with no home directory, password, or the ability to log into the system.  Safer that way.

Also, it could be that your bitcoin daemon isn't reading any configuration settings, it's just running on defaults.  When starting bitcoind, did you include any command line options?  Did you specify a configuration file?

When running a daemon it's more practical to have two configuration files, one for the daemon to start all the services you want the daemon to run, and another in your home path that specifies the user's preferred settings, like wallet location and whatnot.  To me it sounds like the daemon isn't configured with rpcauth.

A practical way to set the authorization string it by using rpcauth.py, you can find it in the bitcoin master tree under share/rpcauth/.



So, if you were to use the example in the image above, you would add the following string to the daemon's bitcoin.conf file:


And in the user's bitcoin.conf file you would add:

14. Alexander Volkanovski
13. Brandon Moreno
12. Robert Whittaker
11. Jalin Turner
10. Bo Nickal
9. Niko Price
8. Jack Della Maddalena
7. Yazmin Jauregui
6. Jimmy Crute
5. Vitor Petrino
4. Cameron Saaiman
3. Jesus Aguilar
2. Esteban Ribovics
1. Tatsuro Taira

NOT go the Full Distance: 6

a.  SPFC
b.  Under
c.  1 -0
d.  No
e.  57'

Lol, it's always deflection with you.  Emotional or rational, does the argument makes sense?

If you want the trust system to work properly, it needs to be verifiable.  We're all here because of bitcoin, a verifiable and irrefutable medium for the transfer of wealth.  People are going to make mistakes with a structure like that.  Most of us are used to being coddled by our financial institutions, but it's not our job to prevent those mistakes.  Some are going to learn the easy way, from the experiences of others.  Some of us more stubborn and need to learn our lessons the harder way.  You're not going to prevent all, nor a small fraction of that.  

Sure, it's great to expose those who've proven themselves to be untrustworthy, but that's not likely to prevent someone from falling victim to their own greed anyway.


I don't have the exact quote but at one point theymos said something to the affect of we would be surprised to learn how many high-ranking accounts have been purchased over the years.  So, I'll have to disagree with that statement.  The truth is there are many cases we'll never know if the member we're dealing with is the same one who created the account.  If the account in question is only vying for a position on a signature campaign, and isn't attempting to gain the community's trust, what does it matter?  The shady ones will be found out simply because they're up to shady shit.  The rest of them may go on forever and never be detected.  Just because the majority of purchased accounts that are detected are up to shady shit, doesn't mean the majority of purchased accounts are up to shady shit.

There are no rules against that, but obviously you insist on being part of the problem you complain about.



It seems you are unclear about the concept of public perception.  If the perception is that a bunch of rouge DT members are handing out red-tags based on their own biases, then the perception is the trust system is fucked.

Go on, keep red-tagging people for stupid shit like

• Having alts
• Shitposting
• Purchased account

The only action on that list that is against forum rules is shitposting, but unless theymos asks you to be a moderator it's not your job to punish shitposting, and it's not a function of the trust system.  If you insist on continuing the way you are, don't be surprised when you see members in signature campaigns despite having been red-tagged by you.

Interesting that you complain about negative feedback losing it's meaning, yet you are among those who are so eager to dish it out without concrete, hard evidence.  Don't you see how your actions are contributing to the lack of value given to red-tags these days?

If you want your reviews held in high-regard, don't emulate one of the most egregious trust-abusers on the forum.  Instead, consider how you would want to be treated by a jury of peers when and if an allegation is made against you.  Do you want people's opinions of you to the final judgement, or would you rather be treated as innocent unless proven guilty without a reasonable doubt?  If the trust system is to be trusted, red-tags have to be irrefutable.

Lol, I referred to myself as cranky, and yes I'm still a cranky Yankee but this's par for the course.  I wouldn't say I've had any tantrums, at least not since 1984 or so.  But it's true, that particular newbie's stubborn ignorance did get me a bit more cranky than usual.  His giddiness at watching the OP shoot himself in the foot isn't elevating my image of him, either.

As you can see, I'm not in the habit of tagging every newbie that asks for an unsecured loan, usually they have to be exceptionally dense to get me motivated enough for that.  Hell, even petulantscumbag34 only just recently got his first tag from me after a year of being an entitled loud-mouthed brat.


Great idea, maybe a thread in meta were we can discuss certain questionable behavior and how to respond in a unified manner.

Rugby is played with a ball that's the same shape, and that's about all the similarities the two games have.  The tackling style in rugby is totally different, the speed of the game is totally different.  Attempting to compare the two makes it sound like you've never watched a NFL football game.  Please educate yourself before engaging in an argument about a subject you don't understand.