I would say it would be useful to include it anytime funds are escrowed with someone who is trusted within the community (I would say in the description, not the chart). You would also potentially add a y/n column to say if funds are escrowed or not.

I might also mention the maximum potential payout per period verses the total amount escrowed (in the description) so users can get a good idea as to how well they are protected.   

I responded right around the time you sent me a PM (I did not realize you posted here as well)

(bump)

PB Mining (Thread)
Miscellaneous: The campaign has ended until further notice. (Note: they have said they will likely bring a new campaign back soon with the same payout but with some kind of competition and more work to earn payout)

They have also increased their rates (see above - the increased rates are not on the OP of the campaign) and are now closed for new participants

cloudminr.io Signature campaign (Thread)
Payment period: Weekly; on Sundays
Minimum posts: Posts will roll over from week to week if you do not reach the minimum however the minimum number of posts is not specified.
Payments: S+:0.0003 BTC / post; F: 0.0002 BTC / post; M: 0.0001 BTC / post
Miscellaneous: Very low payments. Devthedev is apparently holding .21 BTC in escrow according to his escrow thread

You spelled "exchange" incorrectly. How did you acquire such a large amount of gift cards?

I am sorry to tell you that no one is going to lend you a million dollars on here. I would doubt that even most people even have a million dollars to lend you if it was an appropriate risk.

From what I have seen you will pay a higher rate and lenders will have stricter lending standards then if you were to take out a loan at the bank.

I doubt it is vod, however the OP started an escrow service shortly after making this post. The OP does not have very much trading history, certainly not enough to operate an escrow service. I would say the negative trust threat was warranted if the unnamed person was threatening to give negative trust because you would "compete" with their escrow service

Did Charlie not say that you have his telephone number, email address an home address? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to contact him via one of those means instead of bumping this thread daily? If he is not online then he will obviously not see this, but he would almost certainly receive a text message and/or a phone call

You are correct that we will not see exponential increases forever but I can say that it will likely increase by a good 9% in roughly a week or so and difficulty has increased by at least 10% with very few exceptions this year.

I am not sure you would want to see my offer as it would be well under 10 BTC (while you are asking for 45) nor that you would even take it seriously.

One article is almost a year old, while another is ~2 years old, and the others are more recent, although I don't think there is any real rule agains posing "aged" information like that.

I would wait for BadBear to respond, as he tends to be pretty fair and should be able to give an explanation.

Were the posts deleted? I reviewed your posting history and don't see any articles posted in the last 2 pages of your posts.

What part of my projection are too pessimistic? My calculations assume that the miner would have 100% luck (which is really all you can assume in regards to luck).

From the looks of it bitmine.ch is selling horribly overpriced contracts. If you can find an error in my numbers/assumptions/calculations then please let me know, as I may be interested in the potential for ROI is right.

Oops, it looks like I missed that. If maintenance/electric cost is $80 per TH per month then it would cost $3,360 per month for the entire contract for maintenance.

Assuming that difficulty increases 10% every 2016 blocks then maintenance would exceed revenue after 75 days and you would have lost ~37 BTC on the contract. If difficulty increases by 5% then maintenance would exceed revenue after 145 days (which is just before the end of the contract because it is already a month in) and you would end up losing ~30 BTC. If difficulty goes up by 1% then revenue would exceed maintenance for the rest of the contract, however after 162 days you would have lost ~14 BTC. In order to have any kind of ROI on this contract you would need to have difficulty decrease by ~2% every 2016 blocks (something I would consider extremely unlikely, especially over a 5 month period) which would result in a profit of ~1.9 BTC on a 45 BTC investment or a ~4.22% return.

Source: bitcoinwisdom
Calculations:

Also do you have a reserve price? You mention what Bitmine.ch is charging on their website but fail to mention what you are willing to take for it

IMO 10% per two week period is most likely too low of an estimate when calculating your potential ROI. The median difficulty increase has been closer to 20% ever 2016 blocks then 10%. So your chart is under estimating the likely difficulty increases by a factor of at least 4

Here is a quote from negative trust that TECHSHARE left someone regarding Infinitecoin

Paidverts (Thread)
Miscellaneous: According to the OP they have 0 spots available. They should be moved to CFNP

This thread is an example of when the negative feedback was warranted. The OP in this case was trying to buy trust, something that is untrustworthy

TECSHARE is being very aggressive against anyone who speaks out against him. If you look at his sales threads you will see that he bashes anyone who tries to question him or how he describes (or prices) his products. He will not accept any kind of criticism.

He is acting especially aggressive in this case. I would say that people are not speaking out against him out of fear they will receive similar treatment that Armis received. The fact that so many people conduct business here makes receiving negative trust a torpedo to an account. The only people who have spoken out against him (vod and badbear) conduct very little business here.

He is talking about theymos removing him from his trust network, as being someone that is trusted, not as a moderator. There is a big difference. Also the mod that is "coerced" to change your feedback is giving facts and is not forcing you to change anything.

Again, you keep saying its "personal". It is NOT PERSONAL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS GUY. I never talked with him once before he started harassing me. He is attempting to harm my BUSINESS by attacking my reputation. He got only what he was dishing out back. BTW its easy for everyone here to call this "unnecessary" when there is zero cost for you to completely ignore the situation, and I am the one that is dealing with loss of sales and harassment. Apparently because I have lots of trust I am supposed to stand perfectly still like a royal guard while tourists slap my face. [/quote]You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
Is this not what you are doing?

Here is another one you left for the same user on 9/10/13
Why did you not leave a similar disclaimer on Armis feedback? Or why did you not leave the disclaimer that he did not scam anyone? The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?