If (if) Betcoin.AG has the type of technical evidence that I infer they must, then disclosing that evidence would indeed be tantamount to providing an instruction manual titled, “How Not to Get Caught Next Time”. I have been finally asked the questions by the mediator, and as i was saying ALL ALONG, betcoin.ag main argument is in 3 fields 1. IP/VPN (and they dont connect the two accounts based on this) 2. same btc wallet address 3. some same bets at the same time Now all these 3 points i have admitted in my very first post here. I obviously cannot speak to evidence that I have not seen. However, Betcoin.AG has explicitly alleged that they have much more than that. He suggested that his account was banned because of the same bets and same Bitcoin wallet. Obviously, this does raise red flags, but it is just a part of a greater body of evidence that we have on these 2 players. [...] He is playing dumb, but if you read through his posts, it's apparent he knows exactly what he is doing here.
Now, PLEASE PLEASE think of ANY reason, that they would not release the list of bets here. How would your (and their obviously) argument of "manual titled, “How Not to Get Caught Next Time”" apply here? I have said my opinion that they should state your balance as requested (or at least provide some reason why they don’t). I don’t know enough about their site to judge whether lists of bets could be in any way sensitive for their part; indeed, as I have said, I have never done sportsbook myself. I do note, they said this: We told him we would provide all wager and balance details to the mediator, but "around 1 BTC" is certainly enough to get things started. Also, there is this: He just simply ignores ANY request for some exact information. Hell, he even still did not provide anybody with the exact balance of my account. Can that somehow put their security protocols in scrutiny ? I am guessing that it goes something along the lines of advice to the effect that, “If somebody is publicly accusing you of stealing money from him, and demanding that you specify the exact amount that he claims you stole, then STFU and don’t do discovery on a public forum.” That said, I would think that this kind of information would need to be disclosed through any kind of a reasonable mediation process; and I do not see a reason why it should be kept confidential there.
How would your (and their obviously) argument of "manual titled, “How Not to Get Caught Next Time”" apply here? C’mon, zikzik! After all that I have said on the topic, let’s not play dumb here. I was obviously talking about this: We spend many Bitcoin each year on fraud prevention technology and every time the abusers discover what we have, they come up with new ways around them. As mentioned earlier in this thread, we have banned approximately 500 abusive accounts this year. Through cooperation with some of these accounts, we have gained access to several Discord and Telegram groups with thousands of members, which specifically teach players how to cheat sites, including different methods of exploitation, how to make your region undetectable and how to fake your KYC documents. We learn a lot from these cheats, and just like them, we adapt our security as well.
He suggested that his account was banned because of the same bets and same Bitcoin wallet. Obviously, this does raise red flags, but it is just a part of a greater body of evidence that we have on these 2 players. As this player knows well and stated in the title of this thread, his account balance was about 1 BTC. He is playing dumb, but if you read through his posts, it's apparent he knows exactly what he is doing here. A message to cheaters:
It is easy to get away with malicious and abusive behaviour on naïve sites. —Not easy on sites that are serious about catching you.
I know of open-source code that can do at least some part of what Betcoin.AG claims their security system can do. It’s not a drop-in solution; it may require expensive consultant work to integrate into a site. I am also aware that there exist proprietary commercial systems that can catch you red-handed, if you try to multi-account from a banned region from behind a VPN. These are the same types of systems also used by banks, large cryptocurrency exchanges, and other financial institutions; the systems are expensive, and (unfortunately, in my opinion) quite commonplace in the industry. On non-gambling sites, you are being invisibly checked by such systems every day.
I am not saying that that’s what happened here. I am saying that it is a major issue that the mediator should inquire about.
We understand that in these cases, the benefit of the doubt can go to the player. Especially, since we are unable to share publicly the overwhelming evidence against him. The reason for this is that when dishonest players discover our tools to recognize fraud, they move on to new ways to cheat the system. We have invested heavily in these tools, as we get roughly 500 fraudulent players each year. If any of these accounts dispute their resolution, we encourage them to seek 3rd party mediation. In the last 4 years, we have had 0 rulings against us by independent 3rd parties. It is simply not in our best interest to hold this player's nominal winnings when we know going into it that we will have to defend ourselves in the public forum. Taking on this player in the public eye, we assume all the risk.
We have many players each day placing individual bets which are more than double the size of this player's total account balance. We love winners, and like all casinos, we love to promote our big winners, as it lends to our legitimacy and attracts new players. We kindly ask that you allow the process to take its course here and we strongly believe that we will end up on that right side of things. Thanks again to all, and we hope to resolve this matter as soon as possible. In all fairness to you, zikzik, I do not know Betcoin.AG, I do not know if they are an honest site, and I cannot vouch for them. I simply have never dealt with them before; and I do not vouch easily.However, reading this thread (and the other one), I see that they say exactly what a legitimate site would say if they had high-tech fraud prevention technology that caught a cheater red-handed. Only the mediator is in a position to ascertain whether or not that is what really happened here. I observe that if zikzik is innocent, then it is to his advantage for the mediator to take some time scrutinizing the evidence. Betcoin.AG gave the mediator something. If that something is wrong, then the mediator needs to figure out what is wrong with it—if that something is right, then the mediator needs to understand it so as to make a clear judgment. Whatever Betcoin.AG showed the mediator, the mediator should not rubber-stamp it!
[...]
That said, obviously, it is in the interest of all parties to get this over with as promptly as practicable. The longer that SBR takes, the longer that this thread will continue; that is certainly not in Betcoin.AG’s best interest.
|
|
|
|
I have supported both flags and connected accounts will be tagged shortly. Thanks for spending your time to detect all these connected accounts. Thanks. Credit re Rainbowsky goes to owlcatz for calling out Rainbowsky to begin with, to 1miau for inferring the probable connection with “Slbtc”, and to owlcatz for bringing it up here. I only got into this because the user started a troll topic in Meta, which staff have since wholly trashed ( Loyce’s archive); and upon further investigation, I found that either it is a scammer, or it is a troll trolling with troll-scam threads that could actually cause somebody to lose money ( e.g., the advocacy of Martingale gambling as an “investment”).
On Trusting Trust FeedbackMost unexpected thing is that still people exist who don't think twice before giving positive feedback to someone like "Rainbowsky" just after a single trade or transaction. I am clearly seeing +1 green trust on his profile where multiple red tags are dazzling on the other side. After having this update its pretty much clear to us that we will see more connected accounts which are controlling by the same person.
That is a major concern of mine. Many users complain about negative trust, but not enough people are complaining about the careless sending of positive trust feedback! It is certainly good cause to ~exclude. If/when I take the time to suss out who is bringing cheap positive feedbacks into my trust network (probably on level 2), I will ~exclude them all; I already see very few of them, due to my careful selection of my inclusions list and the many exclusions that I already make. Scammers know that they can pull a mini “long con” with just a few little trades. Another common scammer tactic is to build trust at negligible cost and effort by taking, then repaying small loans. In the local boards, positive trust is also often given for translations (oft even low-quality translations, though that is not the real issue). I am extremely conservative in matters of trust. I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly. If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight. It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world. Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high. I am ultraconservative in matters of trust; ... “trust is hard to earn, easy to lose”. ...
There are certain empirical facts about trust known by experience to anyone over the age of thirty. I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust. A good post in the Russian forum (needs merit when I catch up with some other issue): Зеленый - цвет безопастности, спокойствия, уверенности. Даже на светофорах сигнал дающий дорогу и показывающий пешеходам что сейчас их время - зеленый. На многих форумах связанных с финансовыми делами или торговлей зеленый это тоже признак надежного торговца. Поэтому все равно, некоторые люди будут воспринимать зеленые отзывы как весомый аргумент при сделке. И опять таки, негодяи очень часто пытаются этим воспользоваться. Они не глупые в этом плане по крайней мере. Они как раз используют рептильные качества (сложный речевой оборот, хе хе) как то умение манипулировать для такого. И жертвы как мы видим находятся. I also know that Lauda was aghast at how cheaply some people give positive trust feedback. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't mind sharing what the report was for as people have a right to know it requested and it can help prevent further mistakes either by that user or staff, but who reported it should be left up to the individual if they want to make themselves known.
Thanks for the reply. Should that be taken as confirmation that this was a mistake by staff, and such reports should be marked as “bad”? That said, this is a serious thread. Much though I enjoy interposing a moment of levity, I share your hope for serious answers here. I didn't remove them but there's a few reports against you there for off topic posts.
Thanks for the reply. Aren’t “off-topic” reports for WO supposed to be marked as bad by the forum moderators?
Report button in WO should be remapped to OP (infofront currently) or removed entirely and that would take care of this issue.
It shouldn't be removed as people can post malicious stuff in there that would need to be removed quickly. There's been multiple waves of spambots recently and many or posting malicious links so they need to be acted upon ASAP. We know how to use a PM system. I assumed that you were making a rhetorical point, Hueristic, which is why I did not reply. Unfortunately, this being the Internet, theymos for needs his staff to do 24/7 immediate handling of stuff that needs to be nuked from orbit. As alluded in OP hereby, to date, I myself have thus far reported exactly one post in WO: It was pure, unadulterated spam from a pure spammer account that staff summarily “nuked”, thus deleting all of its posts and banning it in one shot: That is from a saved copy of the modlog. It has probably scrolled off by now.Meta LogDateTime | Action | Detail | 11/6/2020 6:26:20 AM | Changed to Archived status | Nuke user |
 I try to do Kitty proud. 😼
~
Merit for coming forward You are adept at raining down source merits for criticisms that suit your petty personal grudges. It is far from the first or only time (and I will admit, to my shame, that I have been the beneficiary of that in the past). Do you need an “unapplication” filled out for you?  but please don't report WO posts for off topic... Something grave like doxing or plagiarism should be reported but other than that - leave it to infofront to decide and use "Ignore" judiciously. I actually do not use the forum’s ignore function. I tried it, when I was a new user. Didn’t like it. I do not even ignore you and cryptohunter, whom I consider to be two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, my mental ignore function automagically files the majority of the forum in “ taken under advisement”. 🗑️
To those for whom nullius posts actually pose a problem, there's the Ignore button -- it works quite well, I should know. True, I have decreed that nutildah and some others are banned from reading my posts. nutildah obeys.
Just my 2 sats.  You are not a very good cat; So sad to hear.  Awww. I have a soft spot for cats. 😿 In a yet-unpublished post (ironically in reply to mikeywith in Reputation; I should finish that), I remarked that I sometimes find it helpful to read a post without looking at its author’s name. That applies both to good posts, and to things that come off as surprisingly... otherwise. If you come off the way that you did, then—well, then you will get the response that you got. I totally appreciate your insightful technical posts and your posts about privacy (if you have a look at my post history you'll also find quite a few topics advocating for privacy). Also a reason why I'm not using an ignore button here. In general I'm not using it at all and had no trouble so far. After all it's an discussion forum (with some rules).  True. I am not sure how I missed this back in January. (I first happened across it last month or so.) The bilingual multiple versioning of your own post is a remarkable effort. (And I know something about putting time and effort into posts, including some of those deleted in this instance.)You are obviously just as much an ignorant n00b as I myself produce surely annoying
spam walls. So, don’t get so extremely butthurt that I called you out in due turn.
And I've never questioned fluffypony's quotes from your post. You called it a fluffypony post —which it was assuredly not. - Newbie protip #1: Read the rules. WTF is it with n00bs who do not read the rules?
Special Wall Observer rules: bitcointalk.org moderators do not moderate the Wall Observer thread for multi-posting (except obvious spam), trolling, or on-topicness. Do not use this form to report those violations; instead, contact the thread owner. Reports of other rule violations are OK here.
100% agreed.  A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Obey.  I am way ahead of you, in OP on this thread—even with the same quote that you have helpfully highlighted for me: For my part, I am usually supportive of the moderators; they have a hard job, and I have no wish to make it harder. However, if I were to say nothing about this publicly, then I would hereafter need perpetually to second-guess myself on whether I have permission to discuss Big Tech censorship (!) and Bitcoin transaction censorship (!!) on this forum. Inter alia.In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. I would feel thus a chill wind blow over my ability to engage in serious discussion here, if I did not place the individual who deleted my posts on notice that I will call out exceptionally stupid moderation decisions. |
|
|
|
Sorry, zikzik, I did not see your reply before. When I see RichGang as the latest poster in my Updated Topics list, I just sort of ignore the thread for awhile. sorry nullius, i dont want to seem rude, and i really have no right to, but ...
this is not the first time you somehow dont read everything and then make your bold assumptions and "on paper" also accusing me of some wrongdoings ...
The account from Montenegro would not cover the losses on my account.
why would i create another account "to scam" them, if i am loosing big in mine anyways? Although I am not an expert in sportsbook abuse schemes, it is my understanding that if you pull such a scheme, then you may win some here, lose some there—it is still gambling, but gambling with an unfair advantage. Moreover, it would give you an unfair advantage over all of the people who play fairly, according to the rules. If you are innocent here—if you yourself were playing fairly, according to all of the site’s rules—then surely, you must find such a thing objectionable! The cost to the site from unfair play is ultimately borne by the innocent players, of course. Otherwise, the site would go out of business. I think that people who play by the rules should be glad that sites make sure that everybody follows the same rules. betcoin.ag has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to connect me to the Montenegro account, apart from the things i have admitted in my original post:
1. Same wallet address for deposit
2. Some amount of the same (similar) bets As I have explained multiple times, both here and in the KILLYMNE thread, I infer that they must have some other type of significant evidence. They must. And if they don’t, then the mediator should kick their arses! I will not explain further, because just in case you are guilty, I do not want to give you hints about how to get away with it next time. My perspective on this case—if you are new here, then you would not know: I have a reputation on this forum for technical expertise, specifically as to (a) Bitcoin, and also (b) privacy, security, and anonymity technologies. If you ask around here, then even the many people who hate me will admit that I know much on such topics, if they are fair. :-)Tor user here. Cypherpunk who remembers that it took an excruciatingly long time to generate 4096-bit RSA PGP keys on 90s hardware. I am strictly pseudonymous. I am so dedicated to encrypting everything, everywhere, all the time,
You seem to know your privacy stuff. I respect people who work on their opsec. Laudatory Lore.
The argument that they can not, because then the player would be able to cheat better the next time, is f** bullshit of course. That is not correct. As I have said multiple times, at considerable length. Anyone with significant expertise in network security and abuse handling would know this to be the case. If ( if) Betcoin.AG has the type of technical evidence that I infer they must, then disclosing that evidence would indeed be tantamount to providing an instruction manual titled, “How Not to Get Caught Next Time”. It is why I have repeatedly urged that the mediator should examine such evidence in depth, in strict confidence (and if necessary, with a consult from an expert in the manner of an expert witness). This type of evidence can be complicated; and as discussed below, the mediator should not simply take Betcoin.AG’s word for what it means.
this is exactly how the scam works . the victim is already giving up. this is exactly what the scammer betcoin is looking for Yes, it is so very plausible that somebody rich like you would just give up and forget about “around 1 BTC”. /s
As are many others, I am awaiting news about the SBR mediation. In fairness to all parties, I hope that the mediator will take adequate time to understand and interpret potentially complex evidence; but the case should nonetheless be disposed as promptly as practicable. I observe that if zikzik is innocent, then it is to his advantage for the mediator to take some time scrutinizing the evidence. Betcoin.AG gave the mediator something. If that something is wrong, then the mediator needs to figure out what is wrong with it—if that something is right, then the mediator needs to understand it so as to make a clear judgment. Whatever Betcoin.AG showed the mediator, the mediator should not rubber-stamp it!We have just submitted our 6 page, 2100 word report with 27 screenshots to the mediator. They have many cases to rule on and this one has an enormous amount of information, so we ask for your patience while this is resolved. It is also possible they will need some additional information from either us or the OP prior to making a ruling. We will update the community with the results. Thank you.
I think that the highlighted portion shows good faith from Betcoin.AG. If they wanted for the mediator to say, “OK, wow, you showed me lots of fancy stuff! You win! Case closed!”, then that would be very bad; and if SBR rushed through here, then the SBR mediation process itself would lack credibility. My perspective: I have dealt with real-world litigation in which the judge pretty much just rubber-stamped impressive piles of stupidity. Fair and judicious consideration of the evidence takes time. That said, obviously, it is in the interest of all parties to get this over with as promptly as practicable. The longer that SBR takes, the longer that this thread will continue; that is certainly not in Betcoin.AG’s best interest. |
|
|
|
Alternatively, even if the various bcashes were to attempt to join forces, which probably such joining of shitcoin forces would be a smarter move if any of them could coordinate well enough to figure out such a force joining strategy.. and then it could be called a unforkening..... The unforkening already exists. It has existed all along. It is called Bitcoin.There is only one Bitcoin. Naturally, to unforken, the forkers must untake an unairdrop. That means acknowledging that their shitcoins are worth zero, and that they are the bagholders for scams. They may lament the cold, hard fact that there is no way to turn their forked coins back into Bitcoin.
Oh, the memories... LOL, “‘people’”: The forum staff must absolutely use more rigorous measures in order to minimize the damage that these "people" try to cause. If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree. At the time, I didn’t even notice that the picnic bear was mentioned on that thread. jbreher who? I didn’t recognize his name. All that I could see was a giant kitty-cat chatting with some guy named theymos about negative trust feedback for fork shills. Among other things, fork shills generally cause a high risk of losing money:still room to the bottom |
|
|
|
BCHA is currently trading at 0.05 (5%) of BCH and 39 blocks behind as only mined 3 blocks compared to BCHN's 42. Ouch. I think this will be remember as "The fork that nobody cared about"No, that was bcash I think that drawer is getting full. What a world.
What a world. There is now a much worse “four-letter word”. So, after Roger Ver got forked over, he now forked up his own forking fork. We need a new name for Bcash’s successors. I have been calling it “Btrash” for years. (Search my posts—or look at my sent feedback for 2018-03-12.) Any ideas, now that the forked fork has decided to go fork itself? We can’t even call any such things “Vercoin”: for “Quid Inverecundius” would be more appropriate. Forking onomastics are forking hard! The naming problem goes back to the fourth post in my history here, from the same thread as whereby I learned the virtue of tagging fork shills. So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash. It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names. I don’t even know what properly to call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long.
N.b., that is archaic English; “___’s little abortion” used to be a sort of a stock phrase. If I understand correctly, it refers to miscarriages, not to induced abortions. —Split infinitive fixed in the above quote; * nullius slaps himself with a large trout. |
|
|
|
Matt Corallo turned the fibre network off. WTF!?!? Aside, I wonder if this will affect development of Blockstream Satellite, which relies on bits from that project under the hood. Now we getting more stale blocks, leading to more centralisation of mining. Just at the moment when we are getting what looks like Mike Hearn’s wet dream of a blacklisting/KYC mining pool, too. |
|
|
|
Any opinions if this moron could also be one of his alts? SlbtcAt a glance, the style seems similar. I will watch for further evidence. Please see also this thread, and support the flag:
Thanks to owlcatz for referring me to this thread. |
|
|
|
The style seems similar. I have added 1miau’s list of potential alts to Post #2 here, and may update OP if this can be confirmed. Thanks for the tip. |
|
|
|
Helpful hat on:Gzuz, what did happen to V8's account?  When in doubt, check trust pages for bidirectional neutral feedback linking the accounts. And if you set up a not-as-secure alt for use on less-trusted devices, then you should do that, too! Cf.:- theymos_away (theymos—not confirmed with bidirectional neutrals on the accounts’ trust pages; naughty Thermos!)
- LoyceMobile (LoyceV)
- Probably bunches of others. Tracking this stuff is not my department.
It is customary that such accounts should not be trusted for trading, or when significant damage could be otherwise caused by an account hack.
Nothing. I'm away from home for a bit.
how many merits do you need for next step? Is full member 50 or 100? Full member is 100 merit (and 120 activity) But please don't lavish 'em on this account. I mean I'd like a hat and all, but there's no rush. Surely, I will try to hold my precious sMerits. But at the rate that you earn merits, I would not be surprised to see this account on some little list someday. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Additional information via owlcatz: Probable connection to other accounts. (I may update OP with this after I have time to read through the thread against Rainbowsky, and/or if the connection is clearly confirmed.) Rainbowsky ( trust page) has active Flag #2406. I can't say for certain obviously but the way of typing and broken Engrish are quite similar. I guess only Theymos would really know by using IP logs. I don't think this guy is smart enough to even use a VPN myself but you never know.  Most likely we'll see more when he keeps posting his nonsense. I've listed their registration dates and all of them are similar (could also just be a coincindence). alamjob239 Date Registered: October 01, 2019, 03:44:12 AMBla2kja2k Date Registered: February 02, 2020, 10:15:23 PMacemax Date Registered: February 13, 2020, 09:26:27 PMRainbowsky Date Registered: June 27, 2020, 09:50:37 PMSlbtc Date Registered: November 14, 2020, 11:14:29 PM |
|
|
|
Flag #2465 on #2880133 “Slbtc” ( trust page)
Due to these concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money: See also additional notes.
Concrete red flag 1: Requests large, no-collateral loans—in a self-moderated topic.Loyce’s Topic ArchiveThis is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (1 post by 1 user deleted.)
"Last edit: Today [2020-11-15] at 10:48:43 AM by Slbtc"Will take some loan ~ 0.5 BTC for investment, quick repayment, then take next 1 BTC and so on, up to ~10 BTC. No collateral. Real and quick deal. Small profit. I will need make some calculation before first deal - profit and repayment date.  And current BTC transfer time is large problem for fast deals too. P.S. Repayment can be also fast - in some days. Depends from calculation. Despite the “1 post deleted” note, there seem to be currently two criticisms deleted (plus Slbtc seems to have deleted some of his own posts):
Concrete red flag 2: Advises a basic Martingale gambling strategy as a great way to “invest”—in a self-moderated thread, where it can be presumed he will delete any posts that try to bring maths into the discussion.Loyce’s Topic ArchiveEconomy / Investor-based games / Fast BTC Grab - Invest In Dice - Then Withdraw Profit 0.2 - 0.4 BTCThis is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.Find your favourite Bitcoin dice game through Google, then transfer some balance ( balance must be more than 20 000 Doge - ~57 USD or 2 BTC or 500 LTC ), preferable in Doge, Litecoins and Bitcoins. Make min bet 0.00000001 or something like that, then make payout - 2.2 or chance of win - 45% on auto mode, if loose - increase bet by 100%, if win - return to base bet. After profit - can be 0.2 - 0.4 BTC ( recalculate in LTC or Doge by yourself ), STOP GAME and make withdraw to your account. ( stop if balance is larger than invested balance + 0.2 - 0.4 BTC in auto mode ). P.S. Do not invest if min bet is much larger, you can loose. If dice site have chat, you can say hello to admin after win and thank them too.
Concrete red flag 3: Brags that (well-deserved) negative trust feedback makes you “more popular in the forum”, and thus “is quite good thing”.You can be happy, I can take some lending from you, but profit will be small. From other view, repayment time will be some days only and lending amount can be larger, starting from 0.5 BTC.
P.S. Please be informed that there are problems with BTC transfer times, therefore everything must be well organized before any transfer.
You already have some good negative feedbacks from reputable members because you have no idea how this works so better please first read about this lending section and then apply here about any loan because no one is going to take you seriously with your all this non sense. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0Negative feedbacks just make you more popular in the forum and boost your writing talent. So this is quite good thing.
Additional notes: This user created a trolling topic in Meta, and leaves idiotic false trust feedback. Although I do not propose that such things in themselves should constitute “concrete red flags” within the scope of the flag system, it is additional evidence that should be weighed together with the foregoing, in judging a “high risk of losing money”.
|
|
|
|
Just my 2 sats. Doge sats, obviously. You are not a very good cat; and your ignorance about Bitcoin is astonishing: in opposite your spam walls (whereof 2/3 aren’t even mentioning Bitcoin in a single word; I could argue about the fluffypony post) - Newbie protip #0: fluffypony is (or at some point was?) a self-described Bitcoin maximalist. He oftentimes comments on Bitcoin, especially on Bitcoin privacy and fungibility issues. The fluffy tweet that I posted was specifically and only about Bitcoin—which you would know, if you had actually read it. —By the way, do you know what p2pool and Stratum v2 are? Do you know anything about Bitcoin?
- Reading comprehension protip #0: You should read a post before commenting on it! That was not “a fluffypony post” (!). It cited Riccardo Spagni as a source, because he had been cited by the Russian-language article which gave me a heads-up on an existential threat to Bitcoin, its privacy, and its fungibility. (And that in turn came from the Russian analysis thread, which has much more serious discussion than WO or almost anywhere else in the English-language forum.)
- Reading comprehension
protip question #1: Who taught you to read, so that you could write with neither reading nor thinking?
Dass Jedermann lesen lernen darf, verdirbt auf die Dauer nicht allein das Schreiben, sondern auch das Denken. - Newbie protip #1: Read the rules. WTF is it with n00bs who do not read the rules?
Special Wall Observer rules: bitcointalk.org moderators do not moderate the Wall Observer thread for multi-posting (except obvious spam), trolling, or on-topicness. Do not use this form to report those violations; instead, contact the thread owner. Reports of other rule violations are OK here. - Newbie protip #2: Lurk more. (← nullius doesn’t do moar cuter spellings.) You don’t know what the WO thread is about.
Original topic title: Should Bitcoin Wall Observer thread be deleted? (original OP)extremely toxic community Cf.:I’m awaiting positivity So, instead of building what you want, you want to turn the existing thread into something that it is not, and never has been. Instead of advocating that others should file bad-faith reports against the rule stated on the reporting page, why don’t you go make a tempest in a teacup. <snip nonsense and insults beneath reply> Your opinions are duly noted, and filed in “ taken under advisement”. 🗑️
I was amidst much extending this post, when others popped up. inb4 CT re SwayStar, etc. I may edit this space (or post further if the thread gets ahead of me).
In defence of the honour of cats, I should mention that <long Lauda story that I was writing as the thread got ahead of me>. Despite what I said earlier, I think that Lauda would have made an excellent Wall moderator. I expect that she probably would have deleted somewhat more posts than infofront has; but not unreasonably so, for she understood the Wall! I was paying infofront what was perhaps the highest compliment that I could. Editing in a brief abstract:The “long Lauda story” was directly topical to WO, insofar as my Wall knowledge did not begin when I started actively to post there in March. Once upon a time, the kitty-cat bat-witch first introduced me to WO as part of some private mentoring on “how to do the forum”: Trust system, moderation system, significant forum history, forum culture and etiquette, etc., etc. I may never have even seen WO otherwise: I am not a speculator, so I do not generally venture into the speculation forums. I must emphasize that my opinions are my own. As I have said before, Lauda oftentimes cordially disagreed with me; I am hereby speaking not for her, but only for myself! However, it bears noting that when I make grand pronouncements as if by long experience, it has some greater basis than may be inferred from my activity. It is indeed on the same basis that I have been not infrequently accused of being an alt for an old account—no; my level of knowledge about the forum rises from (0) having on-and-off lurked, especially in Development & Technical Discussion, for years before I registered; and (1) a bit of subsequent initiation into the dark arts of witchcraft. 😼 On a related note: ... judicious ... seriously ... dispassionately ... It is a hint that there is a side of me which may not be perceived from a shallow view of my public posts. I should not need to make that explicit; for anyone with even a modicum of practical wisdom knows that a public persona gives limited information, anyway.
Significant edits: Immediately after posting re V8s, about an hour after the fact with elaboration thereupon, and then much later to add some anchor tags. |
|
|
|
Warning: Nohomo is the least funny joke in the universe. So you're saying... You think it was... #notgay ?? Mouahahahahahha......I think I’m in love ( #nohomo).
I owe you another 2 256 nonexistent WOsMerits, and you owe me a new keyboard (coffee, etc.). |
|
|
|
Trump Derangement Syndrome, Exhibit 2n:Liberals are so lacking in self-awareness that they do not realize how paranoid and hallucinatory they are. Does anyone (I mean, anyone sane) deny that TDS exists and is terribly amusing?
[image text: “...unrealistic body expectation for women...”] Extreme liberalism detected and confirmed.
So, according to crazy lefties, republicans want to kill them all. It is only natural that the mental defectives who advocate recreational self-harm, and who urge free abortions as a method of population control, should accuse their political opponents of being cannibals who breakfast on babies, and eat their own friends for dinner.  (source)I am not a Republican, of course. I tend to view Republicans as being meek, unprincipled, cowardly, and even American (!).
Warning: Nohomo is the least funny joke in the universe. It was that unfunny the first time and to this day. Everyone sprouting it over and over thinking its hilarious. :roll: Reading comprehension failure on my little intercourse with Jay there. A subject to which I may return—busy; just lampooning liberals now.
|
|
|
|
SM will you escrow
Sure thing. Congrats Suchmoon for the win Everyone being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.
I have considered simply paying up on my own bet. It is a charity bet; and I don’t like having this hang on unsettled. But then, I still think that Trump may win; and I have even considered offering a new bet similar to PrimeNumber7’s. If the wager is to have any meaning (or fun, which is the only point of this for me), it must be settled correctly on the outcome (and n.b. that in case of dispute, I did specify upfront a wait-and-see resolution). I suppose that I will just need to wait this out. By the time the Americans get their election in order, 0.01 BTC will be worth enough to buy a small island... |
|
|
|
nullius & JJG ... sitting at a table, debating something....... nullius and JJG sitting in a tree t a lk i n g ..... #no homo. Are you trying to incite me to toss up a Wordiest-Man® Wall-o’-Text™ on the abominable degeneracy of a culture in which men cannot partake in old-fashioned camaraderie, without wrongful imputations of homosexuality that necessitate disclaimers thereof? I like you, man (#nohomo), but you are just begging for me to regale the Wall Observer with my real opinion of the sickness of modern democratic times.
Official Wordiest-Man® Word of the Day™: intercourseOnce upon a time, I seduced a beauteous lady of arts and letters with a running erotic joke about commas, interspersed with intercourse on Byron. Thence ensued a story more appropriate for /u/GirlsGoneBitcoin than here, wherein she confirmed my reputation as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. Thus, I do understand why you’re jealous of my way with words; you should be.
Discourse, you fucking cretin, DISCOURSE. Do you seriously think that response had anything useful in it? A little "intercourse" (DISCOURSE YOU PRICK) about your own stats?
I enjoy being hypercorrected by pretentious morons who neither grasp (not-so-)subtle double entendre, nor even know the definitions of basic English words: intercoursenoun 1. dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc. 2. interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.3. sexual relations or a sexual coupling, especially coitus. The original and proper sense of the word “intercourse” is of non-sexual communications. The word only developed its sexual sense of ‘coitus’ as a euphemism; cf. “to know”: I came in unto her, and knew her in the flesh.Therefore, as Wordy-Man Supreme, it is perfectly proper for me to express my pleasure at the opportunity to have gay intercourse with Jay on the Wall, before an audience of observers. #nohomoA Species of Atavism.—I like best to think of the rare men of an age as suddenly emerging after-shoots of past cultures, and of their persistent strength: like the atavism of a people and its civilisation—there is thus still something in them to think of! They now seem strange, rare, and extraordinary: and he who feels these forces in himself has to foster them in face of a different, opposing world; he has to defend them, honour them, and rear them to maturity: and he either becomes a great man thereby, or a deranged and eccentric person, if he does not altogether break down betimes. An I be wont to wax sesquipedalian, I’ll retreat to the phrontistery for to desiderate lost epochs of literacy.
P.S., the title of this post is absolutely not calculated to torment and befuddle all of the filthy troglodytes whom I have deprived of my posts. :-)P.P.S., I will now wait for someone who has never read philological texts to hypercorrect my apparently inconsistent usage of quotation marks. Actually, I have been expecting that for awhile.
Edit: Thanks, LFC, for the perfect way to sandwich this post. |
|
|
|
I didn't remove them but there's a few reports against you there for off topic posts.
Love to know by whom. The WO is supposed to be a place where pretty much anything goes. It’s bad form to be reporting stuff in the WO; I hope it isn’t a regular poster there. Reports to the moderators are supposed to be confidential. Much though I myself want to know which ovine retard filled with petty spite decided to try to shut me up with false reports (and I can’t help but think to myself a few guesses), I think that I should better leave that knowledge to the forum staff. They should take notice of who makes reports in bad faith, and be guided accordingly. (Edited to add—by way of contrary example: As hilarious can easily verify, I myself am judicious with my reporting. In public discussions, I exercise my right to express myself as I please. Whereas I take mod reports very seriously. I would never report a post in bad faith—let alone ignore a red-lettered note on the reports page, which warns that a report should not be made! Reports should be made dispassionately—and never only, or even primarily on the basis of personal dislike for the author of a post. If I dislike the author of a post that I am reporting, I oft consciously double-check and ask myself what I would do if I didn’t know who wrote it.)
OTOH if it was reported as "off-topic" then the moderator should have looked which thread it's in. I refrained from commenting on this, because I pretty much assumed that an ordinary intelligent moderator handling an “off-topic” report must perforce ascertain what the topic is supposed to be. Thank you for contributing your explanation. Looking at the posts quoted earlier in the thread it looks like [WO] is part of the the post title that nullius created. This may have been a hint—right here, upthread in a thread on which you are commenting: I like to keep things organized. Properly labelled. For the same reason, because WO is special, I retitle my WO posts with a “[WO]” marker. I assume that you saw that. Although you claim to have me on ignore, it would show exceedingly poor judgment to comment on a thread without reading OP, and OP’s responses.
Would love the deleter to explain his or hers reasoning for killing it off. ^^^ Good question. To be clear I am not a fan of nullius, but a good post is still a good post. I will express my due respect for your fairness here, without disclaiming that I am not your fan, either. ;-)
Truly hilariousandco should appreciate your level of "hilariousness", nullius... Indeed. If his name checks out, then he should be one of my biggest fans! That said, this is a serious thread. Much though I enjoy interposing a moment of levity, I share your hope for serious answers here. I didn't remove them but there's a few reports against you there for off topic posts.
Thanks for the reply. Aren’t “off-topic” reports for WO supposed to be marked as bad by the forum moderators? |
|
|
|
[...] a man in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, was arrested after allegedly asking for an absentee ballot for his dead mother so he could vote for President Donald Trump. The irony is that Trump claims there's voter fraud in favor of Biden, while this guy did fraud to vote for Trump... Is there even an allegation (let alone evidence) that such fraud was organized, systematic, and/or widespread on the Trump side? Or is it simply a matter of some idiot deciding to try to cheat, as idiots do every day? #justsaying |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
