Well, if taking a close look at the age of that account you will find out that the ones who destroying the trust of Lauda saying "farewell" and stuffs like that could influence on the negative trust given to lots of cheaters turning them into neutral trust. That could let the members evade from these tags, you can wish her a bright future without harming her account right? Or am I wrong ? Negative trust has no impact on sent feedback. You are thinking of trust exclusions. The only implication someone could gather from the trust rating of Lauda would be if they were too conceited to look up the comments of negatives and automatically assumed, "scammer rating = invalid rating". And if someone is going to use the trust system improperly or not use it at all, thereby getting scammed because of it, isn't that what we expect? You can't prevent scams without the victim's compliance. |
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? The tags clearly make sense, as their credentials have been compromised. The account cannot be trusted from that point onward.
Imagine I decide to publish my private key as a renunciation of my identity, cryptographic or otherwise. The entity known as 'actmyname' on Bitcointalk would not be trustable.
|
|
|
|
Instead, the forum's mission is to be "as free as possible". What if Newbies were, at least, prevented from continuing to pollute a useless board with threads when you have so many accounts there? (or better yet, close the entire board altogether!)* *that whole original premise of moving things away from the Gambling section doesn't make sense when it has extremely low traffic at this stage. I think most people have clued in to things, and even if they haven't, you have users that will post on every new ponzi that comes warning people from participating.
Btw this forum has "ignore" function. I think the best alternative will be if theymos adds "hide" function and we won't even see users and their posts once they are hidden for us. I don't think I have the patience to hit ignore for every new user that comes along. Multiply the effort by all active users and you've effectively wasted cumulative years of work on what amounts to swatting a few flies away... which come back swarming every time. |
|
|
|
The dollar will never be backed by anything ever again. You can't put the djinn back in its bottle. The junkies need their fix. Why would a government change a major source of its power? Manipulation of the currency with arbitrary rules in an environment where money is king means that once again, the rulers can orchestrate their puppetry from beyond the shadows. Being able to print all of this money just dilutes the purchasing power of everyone who holds cash instead of hedged assets. One wonders why Bitcoin is rallying so much: it's not as if it's backed by anything, unlike fiat, right?! |
|
|
|
Every time it comes to casinos doing their own research, especially with IPs, KYC, or other sensitive information (including on the casino's side via logistics), there's always the question of auditing. In terms of the bet manipulation angle, I did note that I was unable to look up the bet (#e47d747386) that was relevant in the 2019 query: https://prnt.sc/wazmdiDeleting bets seems like an issue. It essentially grants the casino power to prevent the 'verification' part of provable verification. Time-scale isn't especially relevant, unless you think that players should be forced to check their bets within an arbitrary duration that is decided by an agent with a conflict of interest. On the other hand, the change in diction does point toward some sort of circumstantial evidence. The only direct evidence would be the full link between the multiple accounts for suspension of the boy911 account. I think the mute is just a separate issue. |
|
|
|
5. There's enough evidence to link you to other accounts ( that have been involved in previous scams ) and 100 % clear evidence , that the original boy911 account has fallen into your hands somewhere between may and september this year. Do we have this? I've just read through the thread - it just seems to be a case of picking sides. So far, neither the screenshots nor claims grant any direct proof of bet manipulation nor boy911's multiple account usage. It would be nice to see some of the change in writing style if we're going to have such claims, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Happy new year everyone "New" year at the start of "winter". I still find it odd  Blame the subsequent rulers of Rome. Dang egotistical pricks. |
|
|
|
A lot of the manufactures are owned by a parent company, and the parts, and quality of service is usually about the same. Yet, people find their favorite, and stick with it. There's rarely any interesting ones with real potential other than a few, and I'm talking about over a few years, there's only been a select few which had interesting proposals, and features. Ironically, the copies of the PoW decentralized systems - that is to say, decentralizing of decentralization - make it easier for a centralized source to compromise each individual system, having diluted their volume across the entire crypto space. |
|
|
|
|
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The real question is: why do people continue to invest in the penny stocks of the crypto market?
Thing about the centralization is that it's able to snuff out competitors whether they are better or worse. Look at fiat, and look at Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
If OP afraid someone will spam or hack his email, he shouldn't create this thread earlier. But since it's too late, i hope OP strenghten his email password and don't click any suspicous link from any random email he received later. Streisand effect. Best case scenario is to lock the thread and bury it. Whether they get the account name changed or create an alt, it doesn't change the email from having spread: perhaps it would be good to create a new email exclusively for bitcointalk? and if possible, apply to each website. |
|
|
|
I think it won't be completely safe given how you can't identify the source of infection and your antivirus are not showing anything. False positives in this case are far more damaging than false negatives. One idea would be to use this opportunity to create an air-gapped wallet: you can sign transactions from the offline device and broadcast them from another. |
|
|
|
Just queue things up while you're not prepared to post. If anything, you can always sneak a post in while your reports are being sent - it'll only pause one - and continue in the list.
I used to do it this way, and I believe I had a 2 second timer? I still hit that fairly regular. I can't imagine what its like reporting with 4+ seconds. Probably why we don't see a wide range of users reporting, and only a select few. At least regularly anyway.
Until theymos repeals the limit at some point and hopefully add some more moderators to the team - plenty of threads that need to be trashed - you'll just have to do a roundabout solution. I don't think this is high on the list of priorities. |
|
|
|
Every escrow address I generated was then signed with my PGP key, but if I had to guess how many of those signatures were actually checked, I would recon it was a small fraction. Opt out. Provide a decoy false signature and then a correct signature when they catch you on it. If they make the mistake of trusting an invalid signature, you don't transact with them for that particular deal. |
|
|
|
So in this case I will not say that you/we are shilling for which signature we are using. If so then all are here is Shiller? LOL You have to go into the metalanguage to see that in this situation, what you have done is changed the definition of shill to fit "anyone who wears a signature" thereby conveying no outside meaning to the phrase, "everyone is a shill" - that phrase would effectively translate to, "everyone who wears a signature wears a signature". Meaningless rhetoric and linguistic bullshit. No one makes such an argument without an agenda or indoctrinated ignorance. |
|
|
|
The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with trying to put more warnings out there to educate members who might have been victims. Just advocate for the requesting of a signed message before any transaction. Verify who you talk to, and then conduct business. If people don't want to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose while performing a Bitcoin-based deal, then they aren't using the tools they're provided to the fullest extent. This is a one-fits-all solution instead of constantly looking for who is on/not on whatever platform. |
|
|
|
|
These notions of respect and disrespect are simply the strategies in the game of platitudes. If the connotation is identical then all you're doing is dressing your sentences for some aesthetic.
Perhaps your interpretation of the incoherence that I read is actually that of great insight - likewise, your interpretation of the dismissal thereof is that of disrespect.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a security feature. Reveals the link to the URL in plaintext.
theymos just didn't bother to change it: it's been like this for a while now. It's not worth the time, anyway: who the fork needs the news when they're trying to respond to a thread? maybe if you're the type of person who meanders endlessly while in the reply box: hit alt+s already
|
|
|
|
I think it's important to be clear that this benefit lies primarily with those who are able to read and understand the source code. As for everyone else, they have to trust that those who read the source codes are competent and able to stop any backdoors being inserted. Open source =/ Trustless. It's the balance between accessibility and security: the need to trust is diluted across all of those that can review the particular processes. The whole appeal of decentralization is the distribution of dependence over the network such that the volatility of malicious actors is (more or less) negligible. No need to run any anti-trust regulation when it's embedded in the structure of the network, like how independent auditing is built into open-source builds. |
|
|
|
Plagiarism at worst, spam at best. I'm not sure why they wanted to pretend like they drew it (merit, post count, buy offers) but none of the reasons I can think of are good. Interesting how the thread is locked...  |
|
|
|
I've stumbled upon some of them months after they made their posts, who knows how many get through. I'm sure that it would be a lot harder to do their hundred-site spam that way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
