I would have spoken individually to each meriter if it were possible to remove their merit from the post. It is true I can not prove or disprove their intentions at the time but if anything happens to the individual at the residence that was posted I could see law enforcement somehow tying them into it, at the very least questioned.. I believe by bringing this up with the meriters I would have been able to have them retract their merit if they could.
In this case I think it better to erase that post from history to protect those four members.. possibly disallow merit in that sub section so we don't run into this in the future. I would have much preferred talking to them and coming to a better conclusion but the inability to withdraw merit is what led me to my red trust rating.

True, it is much like sarcasm over the internet.. hard to distinguish. DT means nothing to me tbh and in the future I will continue to take a stance against public doxxing before an investigation happens. Yes there are past cases I have clearly missed but this one has taken over multiple threads and countless posts so it was very hard to miss.

I understand where many of you are coming from with your statements and I don't fault you for it, but I would hope the conversation here might lead to bettering the forum. We are talking about two very prominent members of the community going pretty much nuclear here.. Vod appears to be taking it through its courses and to the end so time will tell.

Thanks all for your input, I think something needed to happen to spark a conversation like this. For the merit tagging I am open to communicating with the individuals.. I'd like it to be known that if it was "you" in the same situation I would have your back until it is proven that you were indeed doing something criminal.

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.
Wait til an investigation takes place and if a conviction for a crime happens, sure go nuts.. I'd even commend Vod for a job well done(with some merit)

imo this would be the best thing to do here:

edit: to add, your bolded part says "for something stupid other than..." please include where you think public doxxing falls into the something stupid category

So you both think that a pat on the back in the form of merit for doxxing someone is trustworthy behavior? I understand the people that I have left red tags for are great respectable people and if merit could be removed I would have personally asked them to remove it before it even got to the tagging.. but that isn't an option currently. If someone ends up hurt or worse at that location do you think these people would still want their name at the top of the post that potentially caused it?

I don't consider my personal stance on 'doxxing' a personal attack on any of these members. I think a precedent needs to be set and this should be further frowned upon. Many people have been killed/murdered from public doxxing whether it was correct or incorrect. The dox post also conveniently included the fact that OgNasty was holding onto 500bitcoin, this is extremely dangerous and I actually fear for whomever lives at the address that Vod had posted.
We have law enforcement all around the world for a reason. Let them do their jobs.
Even though personal information is allowed in the Investigations sub forum, the question should remain "Should it be?"

I have nothing further to add and I am surprised more people haven't risen up to speak out about this.

You're getting awfully close to being spam.
Also you may want to read this rule since moderators are getting involved here now:

Goodjob lil guy, but what we are seeing now is Moderators stepping into the Collectibles board and apparently enforcing these rules that aren't even that relevant. The community wasn't up in arms about this, one loud member brought it up (you) and rather than speak to eachother like a community and figure out if coblee were willing to accept BTC aswell as LTC (he would) we had to have a moderator step in and give a warning?

Wait until this rule isn't followed in the future and an auction/raffle/sale with bids on it is removed due to moderation.

We basically self-governed and spoke to eachother when things seemed off about somebody's Auction/Raffle/Sales terms and it worked. The SJW nation rises.

Here is another rule to add to your list:

I saw a user post this in another thread:

I don't see anything to address this in the list of unofficial official rules in the OP. Does OP ever get updated or did the author just post it for merit/sig spam? I can see how this user quoted above might be confused if they read the list in OP and do not see anything included about this type of rule.


Looks like the confused user is also posting in Meta:

If this was such a wide spread rule I wonder why he never included it in his OP. It seems the confused user and the author of the unofficial official rules list are the same person.. weird. Is he purposely not updating the list of unofficial rules and keeping it vague so he can get more posts for his signature campaign? Merit? Why is he posting in Meta and not this very thread that he started for this specific purpose. My mind is blown, some kind of special.

This guy followed your unofficial rules and you chose to attack him instead of speak with him or refer him to this thread. What does a newbie member/bidder need to do to stop this? How can you create a thread of a compilation of unofficial rules like this and then shit all over someone that followed them one day later?

Look at premium for day one funded Casascius coins.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122062.0
If public keys weren't released nobody would know if they had one of the earliest funded coins or not. The joy of having a public ledger on the blockchain.

yes please update OP with this

4: teeGUMES

I tried to give this 6.9 merit, then 4.20 merit.. forum isn't set up #manz friendly

If you own a collectible with the private key made by someone else and you think a "I promise I didnt keep the keys" is good enough.. then a bank is essentially just as safe.

Members/companies have been the ones that have created what we call Physical Bitcoins but the definitions are quite literal and have been established for a long time.

Taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Physical:
a) having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
b) of or relating to material things

ie. Something you can hold in your hand.

Bitcoin:
a) a digital currency created for use in peer-to-peer online transactions

Coin:
a) a usually flat piece of metal issued by governmental authority as money
b) metal money
c) something used as if it were money

Round:
Very general -- if anyone finds a more narrowed down definition pertaining to metal rounds let me know.
a) having every part of the surface or circumference equidistant from the center
b) a rounded or curved part



We aren't reinventing the wheel here, these definitions are the worldwide standard and are usually interpreted similarly no matter where you are in the world. Remember that just because your idea/example/opinion makes sense in your region it could possibly be taken as something different in a different part of the world. This is why we need to use the official terminology/definitions as they are.

From the above, a Physical Bitcoin is anything that you can hold in your hand consisting of any sort of material that also has a form of Bitcoin on it, mainly either a public/private key that relate to the Bitcoin blockchain.

A Physical Bitcoin Coin would then be something with metallic properties that is exchangeable/has value to other people. The only part that may be debatable here is whether or not you could compare/swap a coin creator/company in place of a governmental authority issuing the coins. Bitcoin continues to push the boundaries of the financial/technology world and governments are dragging their feet hoping it just goes away rather than adopt. The argument can be made that because bitcoin is worldwide and not government bound that we could overlook that part of the definition as in the future it could possibly change.

An interesting quote when searching for What is the difference between a coin and a round?:

"Coins are legal tender. They're authorized by governments and have a face value.
Rounds are simply coined pieces of metal minted by private manufacturers. They do not have any face value and are not legal tender."

Therefore the only debate we should be having is whether or not we can claim physical bitcoins such as Casascius/Denarium/BTCC/Lealana/etc can be talked about as coins or if we need to start referring to them as rounds.


Lastly we add other words to explain whether or not a physical bitcoin has actual bitcoin on it or not.
Loaded, Funded, Buyer Funded*, Unpeeled, Intact, Newly Minted all indicate that the coin/round has some sort of private key that has been included usually underneath a tamper proof hologram and is currently still intact and the bitcoin available.

Unloaded, Empty, Unfunded, Buyer Funded*, Peeled, Swept, Breached all indicate that the coin/round used to have bitcoin on it but that the private key/hologram have been exposed by the current/previous owner. In the case of a breach it means that the private key had been kept by the coin creator and effectively stolen/compromised.

*Buyer Funded coins have been shown to be on both sides of the chart as it is up to the owner/previous owners whether they decide to use the public/private key combo that was secured underneath the tamper proof hologram by the coin creator.


Edit to add definition of
Token:
a) a piece resembling a coin issued as money by some person or body other than a de jure government

I would say that all our physical bitcoins could be classified as tokens. We use "coin" and "round" to explain shape as it is more common in our everyday lives to say something round and metal is a coin. Definition wise I think token is what should actually be being used but I don't personally think it sounds as professional/desired as the word coin.

It is common to reserve the second post in these cases. I believe the second post will be edited to showcase the bonus item and have it at the top. Try not to spread fake statements.

I encourage everybody laughing at the price to provide some proof of previous sales/availability of The Times 03 Jan 2009.
There is no reason to ridicule somebody offering an extremely rare piece like this. Let's educate and he may realize that his expectations are too high.. he has one, many of us don't.. a large premium is expected but let's try and not scare people away.

Very nice item. Might not see bids but definitely a very rare sought after newspaper. Once we get into the high end "in person" auctions once bitcoin and physical coins become more mainstream this will do really well.

Careful :p that looks almost like a bid.

Whos cutting onions in here? I'm not crying you're crying.

Which one is it there champ