People are not only earning income through pay per post and bounties, though. Although that is how most are earning an income through this forum, some people are earning though providing various services(such as lending, selling goods, escrow, being a campaign manager, etc etc.) . Just as long as people are not scamming anyone or posting pure garbage, I'm cool with people trying to make this forum work for them. After all, this forum is all about bitcoin and various cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is money.

marlboroza requested theymos put him on the blacklist. Also, marlborozo doesn't have a custom trust list. Quite frankly I don't know what you think you caught a whiff of.  

     @Bitfi  I know that you have many objections to respond to. However, Bitcointalk has a thread bumping rule that does not allow the same poster to post more than once in a row in a 24 hour period. If you have additional thoughts to share, and no one else has posted, you will need to edit your last post and add your additional thoughts. I know that can make your messages a bit on the TLDR side; however, I don't want you to end up having posts deleted if a moderator finds out.

     Now To get back on topic. The main problem with your approach is that in order for this to work, a person has to pick a password and salt that they can remember. The problem with such passwords is that they are easier to crack than the webpage you sent to me seems to suggest.
     You gave me this example of a password to use. Bones261LovesBitcoinTalk.orgFor$Advice. Although the web page that you directed me to suggests it will take many octillion years to crack the passphrase, if someone happens to know a little bit about me, it won't be that hard. If a cracker happens to know that I am bones261 and love bitcointalk, they can try those passphrases that contain my user name and bitcointalk.org. I know that you were only using this as an example, however any phrase that someone is going to be able to reasonably retain in their mind is probably going to be easier to crack if the cracker happens to have some information on you.  I also went to your web page and it recommends that the salt be something like a SSN, email address or phone number. This is a rather bad recommendation in my opinion.

    I realize you can have your dice generator generate 7 random words for you. It may seem easy to remember 7 random words; however we get people coming here quite often who can't even remember one word to access their encrypted wallet. The best thing to do is either write the words down or keep them in a password generator. Also, I am not understanding your argument that if a thief comes across a piece of paper with your passphrase written, that they wouldn't be able to tell that it may be a password to access your coins. If you use a phrase with good entropy, it's going to have some special characters. I'm sure a crafty thief can figure it out.

Um, if you look at the whole context, I haven't accused you of defaulting on 3x loans at this time. I was only responding to why I would leave more negative trust if and when you do. As long as I don't see evidence of Magneto complaining, I will assume that you two are working it out in a manner that is acceptable to both parties.

The precedent is that the person who left him the negative trust is dead. So it's not possible to have it removed in the normal and established way. Furthermore, I already presented the posting from Zepher himself that made it clear that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered. Shouldn't someone carry out his intentions for him, since he is now dead?


Theymos or Cyrus gets to decide.



I already left him a counter positive and do not have Zepher on my trust list. What additional efforts can little old me do? I only have control over my own trust list. It's up to the 19 DT1 members and 30 other members on whether they want Zepher on their trust list or not. Also, I really don't see what the "loss" is for the forum? All I see is a fine tuning of the rules to account for cases when the person who leaves trust is now dead, and cannot modify it themselves. (And since Zepher already posted that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered, I really do not see the "loss" for the forum of carrying out the intentions of the dead.)


Edit: Just for reference, here is Zepher's post again. I don't see how this is such an issue for having theymos carry out what Zepher stated that he was going to do.

Hmm, I'm not sufficiently convinced that qwep is indeed a hacked account. In 2016, qwep asked for a loan.


In May of 2017, after a long period of inactivity, they applied to join a signature campaign using the same address.


Then in June of 2017, the account suddenly promotes some ponzi scheme, and suspicions are raised that it could be hacked or sold. Furthermore, I am not seeing a thread referenced that has a victim come forward and provide evidence that they were hacked. I'm more inclined to think the account was either sold by the original owner or never changed hands.  If someone comes back now and "recovers" this account, I'm not certain the negative trust about promoting a ponzi scheme should to be removed by others.

     If this was a normal case, everyone who had left the negative rating for the account being hacked would have removed the negative rating because it no longer applies. However, Zepher is dead, so that is just not possible at all. Sure SwingFirst's probably made a small mistake, but why should he not be restored to whole while someone else who made similar mistakes gets to get their account made whole. It isn't SwingFirst's fault that Zepher died. SwingFirst's getting restored back to whole as much as possible is the very definition of "fair."
    Personally, I don't have Zepher on my trust list. However, I'm not going to ask 19 DT1 members to remove him either.

Unfortunately, the way that the trust score is tabulated, it is not fair to SwingFirst. He has 3 positive comments, followed by Zepher's negative, followed by Jet Cash's and my counter trust. SwingFast's current score is 1 when it should be 30. This is an exception case; however, since we know Zepher is dead and Zepher made it clear what his intentions were in a post when he left the negative rating.
What makes it worse is that each unique positive rating that SwingFirst receives from now on will only add 1 point to his trust score instead of slowly counting up to 10 points toward his trust score.

In this particular case, Zepher had already made his intentions clear.


I have already advised the particular member to contact theymos to see if he will remove Zepher's negative rating since the original owner recovered his account. I hope this does come to theymos' attention and the negative trust is removed since Jet Cash's and my counter rating are only patches, and does not help restore the person's account to the trust score that they deserve.

I'm going to try reporting this post to the moderator. I believe posting links to phishing sites is not allowed and the thread should be placed in the trashcan. It's a shame this person posted in the beginner section, since trust ratings don't show up there.

You can use my hat, until xhomerx10 makes a new one. I'm not using it at the moment.

@SwingFirst. You may want to take steps to delete the messages the hacker left. Otherwise, if he plagiarized any posts, it could cause trouble for you in the future. Also, it appears that the hacker joined a bounty campaign along with other alt accounts, which is why Lauda tagged your account.  You may want to hold off on the delete posts project until Lauda can review her negative trust comment to see if it is still valid. From what I can tell, so far, the person who hacked your account was posting in a local board about the ICO that he was also collecting a bounty on, staring in September 2017.

Edit:Lauda removed her comment. You may want to start your delete post project. Also, you may want to ask theymos if he can just remove the Zepher comment. Otherwise, your trust score will still be negatively impacted even with my counter positive. (The score won't be negative but will be less positive than it should be.)

verified and archived.

Unfortunately, Zepher is dead. I will put in a counter-positive trust. You will need to contact suchmoon and lauda to have their negative trust removed.

     Unfortunately, in order to ensure that this password is only stored in a person's mind, that person needs to pick a passphrase that is easy to remember. Otherwise, if that person forgets, that person will not be able to access the coins. Unfortunately, phrases that are easy to remember are also easy to brute force. If a person picks a sufficiently difficult passphrase, they would have to write it down. Then it would no longer only reside in their mind and would be subject to confiscation/theft. Also, since your code is closed source, what happens if your company becomes defunct? In such an event will the person's device still be able to operate, if the website that they are supposed to interact with goes down? If it will still be able to function and the device itself becomes broken, will the person have to hope to somehow find a working device in order to access their coins? Also, what if the device owner becomes deceased or suffers an injury/illness that severely impairs their memory. In order to ensure their coins can still be accessed by their estate in such an event, they will either have to share their passphrase with a trusted individual or they would have to write it down and keep the piece of paper secure. Once again, the phrase no longer only existing in one's mind. The trusted individual can betray them or the piece of paper can be confiscated/subject to theft.

I'd hardly call it a schism when Ver and Bitmain, too big supporters for BCH, still have their paws dipping in the BTC till, to this day. Even you still have a bagful of that untainted BTC corn.

Because 3 different defaults on three different occasions is worse than 2 defaults on 2 occasions. We will see. If Magneto doesn't complain, then I won't chime in. I probably won't chime in if someone else new joins in the red paint party either.

Well, if Marco's scheme involved going long, Magneto may be in good shape. If it involved going short, not so much. I'd like to see how it all plays out too. Better get some needed supplies ready.

But a schism for BTC is less likely because they usually implement some kind of voting mechanism to ensure that most are on the same page before implementing. Also, what is great about segwit is if you are a user or a miner and don't care for segwit, you can ignore/avoid segwit tx and still be part of the network. Unfortunately, if you are a miner who ignores/avoids canonical ordering, it's not possible for you to remain on the same network as BCH ABC.

Does the OP really think anyone is foolish enough to think that their proposition is sound? I guess the OP only needs one fool, since they want a loan in excess of 1 BTC. I strongly suspect that we are just getting trolled here.

@jbreher So what is likely to happen if BCH-ABC or SV wants to implement another improvement of the protocol that a significant portion disagree with? Are groups of miners going to square off on two or more camps and cause more forks, each fork being less secure since each have less hash rate? Unfortunately, BCH only had fleeting moments in the beginning when it was more secure than BTC due to the EDA disaster and strip mining. Perhaps it would have been better if Bitmain and allies had decided to devote all of it's hash to the chain that they "believed" in, rather than trying to play double dipping games.