---

Need a website or desktop application built? I provide full-stack web and desktop software development services. I can develop:

• Websites and web applications (both static and dynamic).
• Desktop applications (both with graphical interfaces and CLI-based).
• Machine learning models (text classification, neural networks, etc.).
• Scrapers, bots and other automation utilities.
• Userscripts and browser extensions.
• …and much more.

Here’s a few recent examples of my work:

• Stress My GPU - an online GPU and CPU stress testing and benchmarking tool.
• Advanced Linker - an online tool for opening multiple links at once or with delays in between.
• Tab Check - an online developer tool for checking if a website is leaking URL data or is vulnerable to “window.opener” attacks.

I mostly use the following stack:

• Web: Python (Django) and frontend JavaScript
• Desktop: Python and / or C#

If your project strictly requires usage of other tech, I’ve also worked with C, C++, Java, Node.js, PostgreSQL, PHP and R in the past. I currently accept payments in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Cardano, Polkadot, Monero, Zcash, Polygon, Bitcoin Cash, USD Coin and Dai. Other coins may be accepted for larger projects / orders.

If you’re interested, get in touch:

Bitcointalk: mprep
[m] Matrix: @mprep:matrix.org
Mastodon: @mprep@mastodon.social
Twitter: @mprep_btc
Telegram: @mprep
Email: Click here

Reserved

Need a website or desktop application built? I provide full-stack web and desktop software development services. I can develop:

• Websites and web applications (both static and dynamic).
• Desktop applications (both with graphical interfaces and CLI-based).
• Machine learning models (text classification, neural networks, etc.).
• Scrapers, bots and other automation utilities.
• Userscripts and browser extensions.
• …and much more.

Here’s a few recent examples of my work:

• Stress My GPU - an online GPU and CPU stress testing and benchmarking tool.
• Advanced Linker - an online tool for opening multiple links at once or with delays in between.
• Tab Check - an online developer tool for checking if a website is leaking URL data or is vulnerable to “window.opener” attacks.

I mostly use the following stack:

• Web: Python (Django) and frontend JavaScript
• Desktop: Python and / or C#

If your project strictly requires usage of other tech, I’ve also worked with C, C++, Java, Node.js, PostgreSQL, PHP and R in the past. I currently accept payments in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Cardano, Polkadot, Monero, Zcash, Polygon, Bitcoin Cash, USD Coin and Dai. Other coins may be accepted for larger projects / orders.

If you’re interested, get in touch:

Bitcointalk: mprep
[m] Matrix: @mprep:matrix.org
Mastodon: @mprep@mastodon.social
Twitter: @mprep_btc
Telegram: @mprep
Email: Click here

Most likely reported or I've noticed it while handling some other report(s) in that thread.

Don't think I've handled this case / report. Merged the posts, thanks for the heads up.

In this specific situation, it's rule 21 that applies. While "update"-type posts (like those in your threads) do usually contain valuable content which should be preserved, they're still bumps. While bumps are usually just deleted outright, consecutively posted old "update"-type posts should at least be merged. IMO it's a reasonable middle ground which both preserves the content (while the consecutive posts are deleted, the content from those posts is just copied over to the first post in a row) and reduces bloat arising from consecutive posts (removing the repetition of the thread title, report links, multiple identical signatures, etc.).

Since this is a more obscure case / interpretation of rule 21, AFAIK I don't think I've ever banned anyone for not merging their old substantial "update"-type posts. While I personally don't expect users to constantly worry about merging each and every one of their older consecutively posted "update"-type posts, in cases where I either notice or am notified of such posts I will merge them myself (with one of the notable exceptions being posts that are so massive that merging them hits the max character limit or which are IMO visually massive enough to cause extensive usability issues if merged).

You're free to post new "update"-type posts to your threads though. If an older "update"-type post of yours wasn't posted consecutively (as in the post before and after it are by other users), you don't have to do anything. If there are at least 2 old (a.k.a. not counting your latest one) consecutively posted "update"-type posts, I'd appreciate it if you merged them into one (at least once in a while) though I wouldn't sweat it if you forgot or only do so every X amount of posts / days.

---

This wasn't reported - just part of my long overdue sweep of the first few pages of threads in Altcoin Discussion.

If he wants to announce it (and he's mostly giving away altcoins), Bounties (Altcoins) is probably the correct board (at least based on your description of the puzzle / game). If it's a discussion thread about the puzzle / game / whatever then Service Discussion (Altcoins) is also an option. Depending on the amount of BTC given away compared to the altcoins, Games and Rounds might be OK, but don't be surprised if it gets moved to the altcoin sections if BTC is less than 50% of the total prize pool.

As theymos has pointed out multiple times, he doesn't believe in definitive lists of rules or rule of law when it comes to forum policy. He's (publicly) made exceptions for certain rules in certain cases (e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5346118.0 being allowed to stay in Speculation). However, AFAIK he hasn't made any exceptions when it comes to running altcoin giveaways. If he did, that's fine and Krogothmanhattan would be free to run his NFT giveaway with no issues. While I personally think that making exceptions to hardline rules with harsh punishments (as opposed to maybe making the punishment more lax) for reputable / well respected / long time / <insert other criteria of notability here> users is a bad idea, I'm not the owner of Bitcointalk nor would I be arrogant enough to claim to know everything about what it takes to manage a community as old and as large as this forum.

People would find ways to bypass the restrictions by framing giveaways as a series of giveaways (one ends, another begins), splitting giveaways across alts, etc. If we were to exempt certain giveaways from the "no altcoin giveaways" rule, IMO it should lean more on subjective measures (e.g. allowing community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), rather than objective. While objective measures are usually much better (especially when it comes to clarity, consistent enforcement, reducing rule complexity and just general fairness), creating a hole in this rule gives bad actors a pretty big incentive (and ability) to game whichever objective measure was set. Sure, moderators would interpret the exceptions differently but users are free to appeal moderator decisions and over time what's allowed and what's not would start to emerge in a more concrete way.

Unless theymos is ideologically (or in some way practically) against altcoin giveaways, it makes sense for the rule to exist as it is right now. However, post bumping changes made to some boards, I think making a "Games and Rounds (Altcoins)" board, strapping the new bumping system to it and restricting all incentivized posting in exchange for altcoins to that board shouldn't cause any major issues with spam. I can, however, see a couple of other (practical) reasons as to why he might not want to do that - (potentially) degraded quality of Google search results and the additional load on the database servers come to mind. But if neither of those are an issue and theymos isn't against the concept itself, I personally wouldn't be against such a change.

---

There are official rules, they just aren't (officially) framed in such a way that you would expect. Due to theymos's aforementioned attitude towards definitive lists of rules, the actual rules are more of a loose collection of policies left up to the moderators to interpret. Some of them are more concrete (e.g. hardline "no, you can't do this" rules posted and usually stickied in a board by theymos), others - more up to interpretation (e.g no trolling or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=749961.0). Each of those policies are subject to a moderator's discretion through assessment of individual situations. What my (unofficial) thread attempts to achieve is to compile all these loose policies and lay them out. When I notice a pattern in enforcement (e.g. when X situation occurs, pretty much all moderators do Y), I can drill down a more abstract policy to a more concrete rule. For some policies (e.g. "no off-topic posts.") there is no easily discernible pattern hence why they stay at that vague level of abstraction.

You could ask: how is a person supposed to learn all these loose policies without relying on an unofficial resource made by a 3rd party ? Well... lurk, I guess. It's definitely not ideal (hence my unofficial thread), but it is an option. Reading around different boards for several months (on and off) will give you a general understanding of how the forum functions. If you're already an experienced user but mostly hang around in a few boards, you're free to lurk in whichever board you intend to post in next.

As for exceptions, just editing in a moderator's / administrator's note that "this thread is an exception and shouldn't be trashed or moved" I think is sufficient for the exceptions that are usually made. Any substantial modifications to the current forum software are probably gonna be a no go though (at least based on what I've seen of similar community suggestions).

There are plenty of users who had pure intentions when giving away altcoins: they just wanted to give away actual money to promote crypto use (doing so via an established altcoin), they made a new experimental coin with actually innovative features and want to give other users some coins to test these features / uncover bugs, etc. The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts. If theymos set out to provide exceptions for certain cases (e.g. community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), he would've done so and documented said exceptions somewhere. AFAIK he didn't so instead we have a blanket ban on altcoin giveaways that incentivize posting, no matter how pure or innocent the intentions are.

And I can understand why - it's not always easy to determine a person's intentions and even if you can, allowing some altcoin giveaways will make quite a few people think that all altcoin giveaways are allowed. There's a reason as to why I made and maintain the unofficial list of rules - when it comes to rules and forum policy, ignorance is usually a bigger issue than malice. Whether we like it or not, quite a few (if not most) people on this forum will never read my thread or any other content stickied by admins / moderators. A lot of them are going to learn through observation and what they will observe is a bunch of altcoin giveaways being run without any issue. Now, if theymos were to decide that these exceptions are important enough to warrant the potential confusion and increased complexity of forum policy, then sure. But AFAIK there is nothing of the sort that suggests that is the case.

You're free to disagree with the rule and attempt to get it changed, but in that case you're better off PMing theymos instead of discussing it with someone who can't change forum policy.

I don't think I understand. There is no slippery slope - NFTs are altcoins. In theymos's pinned thread about prohibiting altcoin giveaways, he didn't specify whether tokens (altcoins that run on an existing coin's blockchain) count, but IMO it's pretty clear that they do. Unless he says otherwise for NFTs, I don't think that whether a coin / token is fungible or not is relevant here either.

Do you think the rules (or at least this rule) should not apply to reputable / well known / experienced users? If so, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on how rules should be applied. While AFAIK theymos has on several occasions mentioned more lax punishments for long time members when it comes to serious offenses (e.g. a long time value-add user might not get permabanned for plagiarism but instead given a temp ban + a long signature ban) which I can totally understand, I don't think reputable / well known / long time users not being subject to pretty clear cut rules with a rather harsh punishment would set a good precedent.

It's meant to prevent the creation of a large number of completely disposable low value posts within disposable threads:


You could argue social media bounty applications (as well as <insert thing you think is low value yet not prohibited by the forum here>) fall into this criteria as well (and based on my interpretation of the rule some of them do) however theymos hasn't decided (for now) that the negatives of such posts outweigh the positives.


Because a free raffle giving away NFTs (non fungible tokens) is exactly that - an altcoin giveaway that generates a large amount of low value posts. Anyone can pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business. The pieces are all the same - (1) large amount of low value replies (2) in exchange for an altcoin (or a possibility to get an altcoin).

As I mentioned in my first post (and as PrimeNumber7 pointed out in his), you can sidestep the entire rule by simply accepting entries via PM or off-site (e.g. via Google Forms).

IMO "insubstantial" isn't referring to purely just content but the meaning behind that content. If the second part was removed, it'd, by definition, ban anything that follows the "user posts a post->gets paid in altcoin" routine (which includes entries for bounties such as creating videos or blog posts, signature campaign signups, etc.). AFAIK theymos doesn't want all altcoin bounties banned so the wording stays as it is.

As for "no written official rules" and "swinging the ban hammer way too often", since theymos doesn't want a definitive list of rules for reasons he's outlined in the past it's left up to individual moderators to enforce theymos's policy. Some of that policy is more concrete and based on actual hardline standards theymos has publicly posted in the past (e.g. "no altcoin giveaways"), some of it more ambiguous and up to subjective interpretation (e.g. rules based on past precedent, rules that require evaluating whether something is low value or not, etc.). This distributed enforcement will naturally lead to different moderators being lenient or strict on different aspects of a forum and the combination of those strict judgements is what leads to all the bans being issued.

Yes. See rules 14 and 15 in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0.

If an item is being sold for altcoins (with no option to pay in BTC), that thread should be moved to Marketplace (Altcoins). Feel free to report ("Report to Moderator" link, bottom right side of the post) any such threads. As for it being collectible, see the aforementioned rule 14.

NFTs are a tough case cause in the end they are still altcoins and BTC<->Altcoin exchanges already don't belong in the main boards (as opposed to people exchanging BTC<->fiat in the Currency Exchange board). Not sure if there's any precedent for NFTs being an exception when it comes to NFT<->BTC sales (even if they're more lottery / raffle based).

If you only charged a very nominal amount (one that could be considered as an attempt to dodge the "no on-forum altcoin giveaways" rule) then even the paid one might not be allowed. If you're giving away free entries, you can do that as long as claiming an entry doesn't require you to post on one or more threads (e.g. accepting entries via PM, via off-site forms, etc.)

I'm gonna guess that they were probably placed in Games and Rounds (which is a sub-board of Gambling) as opposed to the Gambling board itself. Technically, all BTC-based giveaway threads that require posting in them to claim an entry belong in Games and Rounds and incentivized posting (be it for BTC or alts) is prohibited outside it. Now, I (prompted by a user's question) did PM theymos a while ago about the raffles in the Collectibles board (since I don't moderate the board as often as I do others and the raffles themselves seem to give away things that are neither BTC nor alts) but I never did receive an answer...

100%

To quote a part of my PM I sent to a user a while ago:


AFAIK there are no old archives of either thread on the Wayback Machine so that's something I'm going to leave to one of the admins to handle (or one of the other global mods who's more in the know about this case, if there is one that is). As for the "escrow and signature campaign threads with copied lists of conditions", I can't really comment on that since I don't think I've handled any cases like yours.

If israt1@ copied Little Mouse's thread's text and posted his thread using an image-ified version of said text (while passing it off as his own), that's still plagiarism. Since Little Mouse posted his thread before israt1@ did his yet the date of its last edit is after israt1@ last edited his thread, I can't 100% definitively confirm who copied who since I don't have access over the previous edits / original contents of either thread. If you did see the contents of Little Mouse's thread before israt1@ posted his thread and they did indeed match up, I'd suggest reporting it via the "Report to Moderator" feature and waiting till one of the admins pitches in / handles the case (I'd report it myself if I had seen and remembered the original contents but if that was the case, I'd just handle it myself).

As for anyone referring to loopholes in the (unofficial list of) rules (mixed in with a single answer to a PM that isn't even mentioned in my thread and was qualified with an "AFAIK"), do keep in mind rule 23:


When a user asked me about images and plagiarism, I was implicitly referring to mostly non-text based images (photos, memes, charts, graphs, drawings, illustrations, etc.) rather than something that's essentially just a stylized (and annoyingly non-adjustable) block of text with some graphics sprinkled in between. Even if it wasn't plagiarism, someone reposting images could have their thread trashed / post deleted for other related reasons as well (e.g. the post being low value due to duplication of content). While I'm at danger of sounding too much like theymos, this is one of those cases where a moderator's discretion should be applied. I assume this is one of those cases as to why theymos doesn't want a codified hard set of rules.

While discussing moderation in a thread not about moderation is usually off-topic, it isn't automatically off-topic. Whether it's off-topic depends on the context - someone complaining that "X thing is moderated and shouldn't be handled by the community" isn't necessarily off-topic in a Reputation thread about thing X but someone posting a complaint about his / her posts being deleted in a non-Meta thread they were deleted from is usually off-topic. Context is also massively important when it comes to off-topic content as well - a throwaway line about moderation in a massive post that is completely on topic doesn't always warrant deletion or changes. Obviously, that's my interpretation of what is and isn't off-topic in such cases which brings me to another issue with the proposed rule - what is considered off-topic is up to a moderator's discretion. Considering how subjective this rule is, trying to codify it too much will lead to an inaccurate view of the rules. To quote an older post of mine about a similar issue:


tl;dr The proposed rule doesn't account for the mountains of context / subjectivity of off-topicness and off-topic posts are already covered under rule 2.

Check OP's screenshot - the account wasn't permanently banned, it was locked (there's a difference). Also, not all permanent bans show up in the modlog:

---

It doesn't. However, IIRC it does notify you via email if your password's been changed (alerting you that someone unauthorized has access to your account). Also, if the hacker changed your email address, an email with a an account lock link (that's valid for 14 days IIRC) is sent to your old email address. While neither of these factoids are really relevant to this situation, I just wanted to clear up the misconception.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5360680.0

Wrong format - missing date.

Not an expert in the low-level technical details of how domain DNS works but it seems like all ".club" domains are down ATM (due to what I assume is the authoritative DNS servers for .club going down). Here's the reasons as to why I came to that conclusion:

• You seem to be using Namecheap's default nameservers (which AFAIK aren't having any major issues ATM) yet your domain has no DNS records
• The registrar's (promotional) website for the TLD (get.club) seems to also be down.

The solution? Wait it out, I guess. Maybe you could try pestering GoDaddy as they seem to be responsible for managing the domain (and I assume the infrastructure behind it) though I wouldn't hold my breath (AFAIK GoDaddy doesn't have a particularly good rep).

EDIT: The DNS servers seem to be back to normal (returning the expected records) right after I posted. Well, so much for that. If other users are still having issues connecting to your website, that should clear up in due time (once the cached empty values on different DNS servers and devices expire and are refetched).

Maybe it really should become my new (sorta) lucky number though I'm still pretty partial to my favorite ones (even if they don't win)  . Congrats to the winners.