I fully agree with that, but only after someone has demonstrably changed their ways--and that takes time.  That scam accusation was less than a year ago, and my gut instinct is telling me that this team started off dishonestly and if given an opportunity to exploit others for their own gain, they'd do it. 

I get that some people don't want to ruin someone's business, but remember: MorCrypto brought this on themselves with the Ponzi scheme.  I'm not sure about that fake team member accusation, but the Ponzi thing is enough to wait and see before revising feedback or un-supporting/opposing the flag.

This isn't a horrible suggestion, but I doubt it's going to be implemented. 

Mods do lock threads as far as I know, just not a lot of them and not based on how many pages they've accumulated.  And there are a lot of threads with many, many pages that are still useful (like the WO thread).  If there was some kind of reporting system in place whereby a thread could be locked by a consensus of votes, you better believe there would be abuse happening.

Ideally, thread starters ought to be responsible for locking the ones they've started after they've gotten the answer they needed or if they feel the discussion has outlived its usefulness--and I've noticed that a lot of senior members actually do this.  Unfortunately it's the shitposters (as usual) that are the ones causing the problem, because they start a thread and don't even usually bother to post in it again once it's created.  Their alt accounts post in it, but not usually the OP (lol).

Also, OP, if you come across a thread that's obviously become just a mega spam thread, report it to the moderators and let them handle it.  Even if they don't take any action, at least you've done your part.

I don't fully understand the insurance thing you described, probably because those things either don't exist or aren't popular in my country, but depositing money in a bank likely won't help you beat the effects of inflation--not when interest rates are near 0%.

And bitcoin?  If all you're trying to do is protect your purchasing power from inflation, the last thing you want to do is invest money in an asset that's extremely speculative and breathtakingly volatile.  So no, I don't think bitcoin should be employed for that purpose.  However, if you're looking to make a profit and can tolerate a high level of risk, buy all the bitcoin you can.  Just look at how well you would have made out had you bought it just two days ago--but bitcoin can drop just as fast and hard as it can go up, and nobody can predict when it's going to do either.

A lot of folks think keeping their wealth in the form of gold or silver helps protect it from inflation.  I don't know if that's really true or not, but metals are a lot less volatile than bitcoin and IMO are much less risky.  Good luck whatever you decide to do, and let's hope the inflation rate doesn't skyrocket.

Yep, definitely looks like a lot of the vouches are fake.  My question is: why are you pointing this out from a thread that was started at the end of last year?  

You're new to the forum so you might not be aware that scams aren't moderated here, which means that crap like the thread you linked to can happen and not much is going to be done about it by the mods.  In that respect, bitcointalk is very much unlike most other discussion forums, so just get used to it if you're going to stick around here.  I'd probably take a look at the rules and get a feeling for what the culture is like before you start threads like this one.

I don't have any idea how OgNasty conducts business, but I'm pretty sure there's no legitimate reason why anonymousminer can't get a prompt refund.  And since I have a feeling that a refund will eventually make its way to anonymousminer's wallet, I'm baffled as to why he'd have to jump through any hoops or be given vague reasons as to the delay.  At best this is horrible customer service.

You're missing all the past drama OgNasty's been involved in.  He's never wrong and has some serious blind spots as to how his arrogance works against him. 

Bingo.

Yeah, I saw that on Amazon.  There's also kind of a neat item whereby you can hide your Ledger, though obviously this isn't anything like what OP is looking for.

I also like cases like this, which aren't designed to hold Ledgers specifically but certainly could.  

Amazon also sells a number of time capsules which are designed to be buried, though they're kind of pricey and have way more room in them than you'd need for just a Ledger (or any hardware wallet for that matter).

Lol at this.  OP, things might look bleak for you right now, but remember that nothing is permanent--especially the price of gold, the value of the euro to the dollar, and everything else in finance.  Just hang in there and things will probably improve for you.  I'm sure you've noticed that we're living in some crazy times, and often when I look at the world it's like I'm seeing it as the reflection from a funhouse mirror.

I'm not surprised that gold (and silver) are shooting up in value; I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that to happen.  I figured in the initial days of the COVID-19 outbreak we'd see gold & silver on the moon rocket, and now I'm wondering what the catalyst is behind the rise in prices.

And hey, if you can support yourself with the land you own I say go for it (but only if it's something you'd enjoy).  There's always going to be a demand for IT services, so you can fall back on that if you needed to.  Best of luck to you--and to the rest of us in these lunatic times.

And unsubscribe from their mailing list if you're able to--and after doing that, be sure to not trade there or ever log in to their website ever again.  Problem solved.

As far as that investbox offer goes, I don't know what's going on in the minds of the anonymous folks who run Yobit.  It could be a ploy to drive traffic to their site in the hopes that people will use their other services as well, but other than that I'd be hard-pressed to try to figure out what they're really doing here.  I'm pretty sure it's not going to benefit their customers, though.

That investbox feature is a load of horseshit if you ask me.  I experimented with it some months ago, and it was nearly impossible to earn anything but dust.

That's exactly why I'd be extremely reluctant to try out a new crypto exchange, even if I were looking to do so, which I'm not.  Since I don't actively trade crypto, there would be no reason for me to risk any amount of money on an unproven exchange.  This is also the reason why I wouldn't buy one of the newer hardware wallets that have come on to the market in the past year or so.

The whole crypto space is infested with scammers, and it doesn't matter whether an exchange has a slick-looking website and promises to deliver you the moon and stars; until they've proven themselves to be legitimate they should be looked at with extreme caution.  Scammers know there's a LOT of money to be made with crypto scams, so oftentimes they'll put in a lot of effort into gaining people's trust.  Just look at all those ICOs that turned out to be scams.  Many of them had whitepapers that were well written and websites that appeared completely legit.  My point is that it's often very hard to spot a scam, and people should be careful when they're offering to be guinea pigs for exchanges/projects/whatever.

But OK, let's assume this hypothetical new exchange is legitimate.  What would make me want to try it would be:
1) Zero-fee trades (much like Robinhood and TD Ameritrade do with stocks).
2) A large selection of altcoins, because even though I don't trade all that often, sometimes I get interested in some obscure altcoins from time to time, and often they're only for sale on crappy exchanges like Yobit and the like.
3) No KYC.

Right now, however, I don't think any exchange is going to be able to offer all three of those things and still be an honest exchange.  And frankly I don't think there's really a need for any more exchanges.  There are so many right now that some of them have to submit fake trading volume figures just to make themselves look popular.

And it's because they're so regulated by the US government that they are actually "safe".  Ever since I've been a member of this forum, I've seen tons of scams perpetrated by exchanges that weren't regulated, and with basically no oversight they were free to steal their customers' funds with impunity.

And yes, Coinbase can terminate anybody's account, and they don't have to give you a reason--but I don't think I've ever read about cases where closed accounts resulted in lost funds on Coinbase.  That's not something a highly-regulated exchange could get away with.  Compare that to an exchange like Yobit.  It's remarkable that they haven't pulled an exit scam yet.

Yes, I had that happen to me with Coinbase and I didn't lose my bitcoin.

OP, I understand the concerns you have, which basically amount to privacy issues.  Even if I could reinstate my Coinbase account, I wouldn't--and for the reasons you pointed out.  I don't like banks or anyone else watching what I'm doing with my money.

That's the issue with the alt account issue as far as I can glean from OP's post.  Not being a gambler, I had to read it several times before I figured out what the problem is.

I also completely agree with your stance on KYC and the dangers of handing over your personal information to crypto casinos.  I don't care how good a reputation a casino has, I think it's way too much of a risk to do the KYC procedure.

Yeah I'd say there's definitely a risk of this happening.  If an IPs can't be used to identify the user associated with that IP because many different people could have the same IP address, that's obviously not a legitimate way to link accounts (and I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to computer knowledge, so I'll take you at your word that what you say is true).

And you're always at the mercy of the casino's level of integrity.  You're absolutely right: a casino with a solid reputation could pull off scams like this once in a while and there probably wouldn't be much of a fuss.  One would hope that these crypto casinos follow the rules, but like everything else in this crazy world of cryptocurrency, you just never know.

I certainly never received any PMs about this, nor was I even aware of the scam accusation until just now (and I still haven't read through the whole thing yet).  Generally I don't pay much attention to gambling discussion or the scam accusations that crop up from time to time regarding them, and I'd only support or oppose a flag if I fully understood what was happening on both sides--and with accusations against exchanges or casinos or various other crypto businesses I often don't feel like I have complete information to make judgements.

And OP, sometimes people disagree with scam accusations like this one simply because there's reasonable doubt in their mind that a scam occurred.  Also, maybe you haven't noticed but members who promote verified scam sites tend to get their trust pages painted red, and I've never heard even so much as a rumor that members were being coerced to cover up a scam--and I don't believe that's the case here.

I second this; it's not going to help OP rank up any faster by cranking out a bunch of posts in a short period of time.

And OP, I don't know when exactly you were on hiatus from the forum (I can't view most of your posts because I apparently have the sections you posted in on ignore), but I don't think you could have picked a worse time to do so if you're concerned with earning merits and ranking up.  If you'd just kept posting regularly from the day you registered until the end of January 2018 (when the merit system was rolled out), you'd be at a higher rank than you are now. 

Also: some members might tell you it's not that hard to earn merits, but for the vast majority of posters here it's extremely hard.  Basically in order to earn merits, your posts have to really stand out against most of the nonsense garbage that gets posted all around the forum.  Even then your post has to get noticed by someone who has merit to spare, which is always hit-or-miss depending on which section your post is in. 

And finally I'd mention that the more you post, the more chances you have to earn merits.  If you're only posting casually, a couple of times a week or so, don't expect to earn any merits unless what you're writing is pure brilliance.  I think it's true that the majority of members who've earned the most merits tend to be prolific posters.  So anyway, welcome back to the forum and good luck with your journey.

I don't know--it depends on to what extent the suckers have wised up to the game being played.  There are still a lot of people out there who believe they're going to find the next bitcoin when they invest in some overhyped ICO/IEO/whatever, so don't be surprised if we keep seeing these trendy investment schemes come on to the scene, as there will always be scammers.

Man, I really need to look into what DeFi is all about, because I know absolutely nothing about what it is and I keep seeing it mentioned all over the forum.  I'd never invest in an ICO or IEO, but if there's something to this DeFi thing I might be very interested.

Stablecoins got a lot of press in 2019, but I don't think they were ever a really hot thing.  How could they be?  They suck as an investment and their utility in the world of crypto is questionable at best.

Nah, not privacy coins.  There are some really good ones, but they don't seem to have caught on in terms of popularity as an investment or use in the real world.  And I've said it before, given how concerned a lot of crypto enthusiasts are with their privacy I'm very surprised how little interest there is in them.

Eh, I don't think the definition of intrinsic value has much to do with either of those two things.  You defined "preciousness" as how attractive-looking something is (at least for physical things), and when you take into account that beauty is entirely subjective I'd say that there are a lot of things out there that are very beautiful but aren't valuable--and there are some horrendously fugly things which are worth a great deal of money--a lot of artwork IMO falls into that category. 

"How much people are trading with it" would depend on an item's intrinsic value rather than be something that defines that intrinsic value.

That most definitely is not true.  There might only be one of something in the world, but if there's no demand for it, it doesn't have much value--at least if you're talking about market value.  That something might be extremely useful in some way, in which case I'd say it has some degree of intrinsic value.

This concept of intrinsic value tends to get misinterpreted a lot, and I've generally come to discard it when I look at investments or anything else.  Plus I've always thought that nothing has true value simply by virtue of its existence (an intrinsic property) except perhaps for human life.  Everything else comes down to supply and demand and how much someone is willing to pay for something at any given point in time.

Yeah, the amount he scammed is worth way more than the value of his account so I'd agree this is most likely an exit scam. 

That account wasn't that old, nor was he exactly a trusted member.  I'm sure he's not regretting the fact that the account is now all but useless.  In any case, I seriously doubt scammers weigh the costs like we do after they've committed a scam--my guess is that most scammers on bitcointalk have multiple accounts anyway.

DireWolfM14, I'm not trying to pour salt in your wounds here, but why didn't you get any collateral from this idiot?  I know you've been around long enough to know that no-collateral crypto loans between complete strangers on the internet are as risky as loans can get.

Just my opinion, but I think that rule is written very poorly and IMO probably needs to be revised.  I think the spirit behind it was to prevent spammy-type PMs, but come on--how many PMs do you receive that you actually asked for? 

I get appeals to remove feedback, requests for my opinion, and all sorts of other stuff in my PM box that I didn't specifically ask for, but I wouldn't report any of that stuff to the moderators.  The only PMs I do report are the spam offers to take part in projects and those kinds of things, and there's a world of difference between those and the other ones I mentioned above.

I think your interpretation of those specific types of PMs is correct, although I'm not sure if I'd find an offer from a campaign manager to someone who might be looking for that service to be spam--though it's still against the rules as they're written.

Sure, if the people looking to start businesses and purchase houses and cars have to use bitcoin to finance those things--and thus far all of that stuff is financed with fiat, loans or no loans.  Assuming we ever arrive at a world where fiat currency has collapsed and banks have failed, then there might be some serious problems with bitcoin loans, but I don't think that world is coming.  Ever.

I've studied some economics, but by no means am I an expert.  However, I do see how problematic crypto loans have been so far, but whether there's a good solution to those problems or not, I don't think most crypto lending is done to finance important stuff (like the house/car purchases and business startup mentioned above).  Nor do I think there's going to be a huge demand in the future for such loans--not while the banking system still exists anyway.

Uh, yeah....I think I'd rather own cryptocurrencies outright, in my own wallet, and not pay a premium for a middleman that doesn't need to exist.  The article also states that Grayscale "has found a niche selling [their offering of crypto] in the forms of shares" but it remains to be seen whether they're going to have any success in getting people to buy those shares. 

Institutional investors might have some interest in stocks like these, but for the average Johnny Lunchbox on the street, he'd be far better off just buying bitcoin/BCH/LTC from a crypto exchange and holding it in a secure wallet.  Definitely not stocks I'd want in my portfolio.

Well, you know malls these days ain't what they used to be, and who knows what kind of management they have now.  Sounds like there were some seriously careless managers at those malls if they allowed this dude to install all those ATMs. 

And I don't know “Superman29” was simply attempting to offer bitcoin ATM services or not, but if he was he was extremely careless as well.  He had to have known there were regulatory hoops to jump through before setting those things up....but who knows. 

No kidding.  Thirty years in prison is no joke for not going through the proper channels--but I suspect he won't serve anywhere near that amount of time, depending on how good his lawyer is.