I was a faucet farmer for like 3 years, I know what a referral link is. The potential issue isn't with the danger of a referral link, it's the random behavior.

Some high-ish profile dude wakes up after not logging in for months, resets his password and does something that is nothing similar to his previous behavior. If this was any other combination of members involved would your reaction still be 'eh its probably nothing, referral links are harmless anyway'?

I understand that TC was your bud a few years back, that doesn't change that without a signed message this is weird.

I feel like you might want to take off your sunglasses; not everything is as dark as you think.

I don't think I've seen you with so much vinegar in a long time. Why are you so upset that suchmoon is warning people about a highly trusted account that woke up after a long time and posted some random-ass referral link?

This is why it was removed originally.

I think that noopener noreferrer would be a non-issue to be honest, well worth links being opened in a new tab by default.

I get what you mean now, and it's understandable. I do have a few queries regarding it though:

1. Your method only seems to come into effect after the fact, and could miss out some problematic scenarios. For example:

• A new member makes a thread offering to sell $200 gift cards for $50. The thread links to another website where the gift card is for sale, and locks the topic. This user hasn't broken any laws and hasn't necessarily scammed anyone yet, and so there is no solid evidence of any wrongdoing despite several red flags being present.
• A legendary account that has just had it's password and email address changed puts out a loan request for $200, citing it's self (the account) as collateral. The user has been inactive for years before this, and the type of language they use has completely changed. Again, they haven't broken any rules and haven't necessarily scammed anyone, despite there being several red flags present that the account has been hacked.

Do you plan for there to be a kind of natural selection kind of deal happening, where people have to look out for the signs themselves before interacting with others? Since, as nice as this would be, it could land some people in a shit spot should they not recognize the signs of a scam.

2. Your idea for how to moderate this kind of behavior works in theory, but in practice would always need a staff member to babysit it to ensure it's working properly in their subjective opinion. For example, if there is a gang present in the trust system as you seem to believe, would this gang not just work with each other to mitigate any potential punishment for leaving invalid ratings?

Forgive me if you've already answered this, but should this be implemented what would make people follow these rules? Would someone have to sift through every negative rating left and verify that each one is valid according to them?

This wasn't a huge job, so I went though and changed it.

Thanks for the script EcuaMobi, it's fantastic.

Not quite, but can't say I'm too supportive of that either.

Any manbaby that decides they should pursue legal action over a red mark on a forum deserves every bit of antagonism they get.

I personally don't think it should be funded.

If it were left to expire, I expect it would be auctioned by a third party (e.g DropCatch). I don't think what he's saying is out of the realms of possibility.

I guess that's it.

Announcing the experiment beforehand kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?

Which has no impact on whether MJ is trusted by the community in large or not, as is shown by the variety of people that left him positive trust ratings.

Which increases the chance of problems to arise should certain keyholders be unable to fulfill their duties.

I can't say that I, or the majority of other community members (probably), would have any issues with any of these users being selected as keyholders along with a few others. One of those others being minerjones, which invalidates the discussion we're having.

As hard as you may try to deny it, minerjones is someone that is trusted at large by the community (bar a few members with questionable histories and motives, such as yourself). As I said, I'm sure that theymos and everyone else involved has done plenty of due diligence before allowing the current keyholders to become such. I'd argue in a much better fashion than you have done yourself.

Considering that minerjones is statistically the most trusted member of the forum, who has escrowed large amounts of BTC for the forum, I'd say that he is a pretty good pick. Regardless of that though, anyone could have been picked in minerjones' place and it wouldn't have made a difference provided that the other keyholders are trusted enough to not conspire with them to steal the coins.

I'm absolutely sure that theymos did his due diligence before picking the keyholders considering the massive amount of money at stake.

The beauty of multisig is that you don't have to trust minerjones completely, you just have to trust the others to not conspire with him.

You're being absurd.

Fantastic move theymos, thank you.

Okay, you have just given me the definition of a metaphorical prison. Cheers. How's about you answer the thing I asked in my post next? About how abusing your friends trust in you somehow 'broke him out' of said prison?

If anything, I'd say doing so pushed him further from people like yourself (which I guess is freedom) and further into the so called prison you're talking about. Nice one.

Phahahahahaha. Holy shit, thank you for your service Mr Incredible. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard now.

For real though I do have to ask, what exactly did you do to 'break him out'? Do you see Lauda as some creature that no one knows about, lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce? Do you not think that Lauda is loud and proud about what they think and how they act? Do you think that someone revealing to you, in confidence, that they're kind of scared of Lauda is some kind of bombshell that people will be shocked to hear?

---

Is this the kind of logic that you use to tell yourself that hoarding people's DOXs is ok? That even though that information is obviously private and was sent to whoever in confidence, it may one day be useful to a talking point you want to make so you keep it in the holster just in case?

Imagine plagiarizing, being let off with a temp ban, and then still appealing. I must say, I kind of expected a bit better.

There's no reason for these coins to be funded IMO. Just a token would make sense for an anniversary doohickey.