That's all I've ever observed from and heard about him.  We've got some really good bitcoin-paying campaign managers, but I've often thought that most altcoin/token bounty managers ought to use him as a model for how they should run their bounties.  And yeah, he definitely seems like a personable guy, which is a rarity on bitcointalk.

Yes it was.  I'm not sure if any project would want someone with QS's very tarnished reputation advertising for them.  I'm actually surprised you gave him a shot but nobody's perfect, right?  And there's a very good reason for all that tarnish, but now he's trying to get it to rub off on you by smearing your reputation and saying that you shouldn't be hired as a campaign manager.  That's low but not unexpected, and the good thing is that he's not going to convince many people.

You really have a hard time getting messages that are loud and clear, don't you?  I've seen examples of this before, too.

Right, this is one of the examples I was thinking of.  There surely is some sort of autism involved here, but that's just me playing armchair psychiatrist. 

I wasn't even aware of this until I read OP's post.  I have signatures blocked, so I don't see any of them and I figured that when members got a signature ban, their sig field would just be blank.  Interesting that Theymos decided to put a message there instead--and I agree with you, it does send a loud & clear message about plagiarism.  Obviously either don't read the rules or don't think they're going to get caught copy/pasting, so maybe this is exactly what we need.

And as far as the hurt feelings resulting from the 'scarlet letter' sig-banned members have to wear, I don't have much sympathy for them.  They're lucky they're still able to post instead of getting a permaban. 

In addition, I haven't heard any teasing or taunting yet and somehow I don't think it's really going to be an issue.  The vast majority of members here are just shitposting and wouldn't even bother to say anything negative about someone's sig message.  And I mean, come on.  This forum is freakin' brutal enough as it is.  If you don't have a thick skin, this isn't the forum for you.

I get it, believe me.  There was no good tool to combat shitposters back before January 2018 when the merit system was implemented, so I and actmyname were using the trust system as a tool to fight them.  It was not a good use of the trust system and I knew that, but I was so frustrated at how bad the situation had gotten that I felt I had to use the only tool available.

As far as the irreversible nature of merits and needing to think long and hard before leaving them....I don't think it's that big a deal.  Merits are just a "like", except that they carry a lot more weight because many members need them to rank up, and they're somewhat of a status symbol here.  But IMO it's not that big of a deal if merits occasionally are given out for questionable or controversial posts, hence why I think it's wrong to neg someone for a merit they gave out (unless it's an obvious case of abuse). 

Anyway teeGUMES, no hard feelings from my end and I apologize for reacting the way I did.  I should have given the situation a lot more thought before acting.

Giving red trust to someone for meriting a post that you disagree with, find offensive, or think was otherwise wrongfully merited isn't acceptable, and I think that's why I'd originally excluded teeGUMES from my trust list.  I thought that was terrible judgement on his part, but in any case I don't think anybody should be negging members for those reasons. 

Agree, but personally I wouldn't even give merit abusers a negative and I stopped doing so months ago.  There is way too much subjectivity when it comes to handing out merits, and it's often difficult to prove someone has abused the merit system.  Red paint should be applied very conservatively IMO.

Actisstupidname's suggestion that Theymos should pick his friends for DT would be basically going back to how the system was before, right?  Theymos had picked the people he trusted to be DT1 members if I'm not mistaken, and I wouldn't exactly call that a government.  They weren't necessarily scam busters or members who left a lot of negs or did any kind of actions normally associated with governance.  I'd prefer we didn't go back to that.

I completely agree with you there, and it's what worries me about the altcoin market.  At least with bitcoin, there are merchants who accept it as payment.  That isn't true for the vast majority of altcoins, and I don't think that's ever going to change.  I've often wondered how long these coins can exist when their only function is to allow speculators to trade them back and forth.

Disagree.  I don't put much stock in market cap at all.  It depends so much on how many coins are in circulation, and that's something that can easily be played with.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think people stress the importance of that metric way too much.

And as far as BNB goes, its utility is just about as bad as most other shitcoins out there, but then again I am no expert on technical aspects of crypto.  But the question here is whether it's "the new ETH killer", and I think that's ridiculous.  There's no way that's true IMO.

Eh.  I'm not sure the hack had much of an effect on BNB, but I haven't actually done the math.  I do own a small amount of BNB, and it doesn't look like it dropped much since the hack.  Doesn't matter that much to me, since I always end up converting it to BTC or trading it for NEO or PIVX.

Both should be banned, IMO, but at least this forum is getting it half right.  Actually it's much less than half, because scamming is a far greater offense and much more deserving of a ban.  But Theymos doesn't run bitcointalk that way, so there's nothing we can do about it--it's not our forum.

I'm astonished how many members plagiarized stuff, early in their stay on the forum in most cases.  The problem of plagiarism is much more rampant than even I thought and I'm a pessimist by nature, especially when it comes to crap like this.  On the other hand, it's good to see some mercy being shown to members who didn't make it a habit of copy/pasting and ended up becoming fine, upstanding members of the community. 

I don't think there are any saints present here, and we all make mistakes and break rules and so forth.  However, people change with time.  I'm not the same person I was when I was in my 20s, or even 5 years ago for that matter.

But you said you never plagiarized.  And it was just shown that you did.  Why did you just tell a lie about it?

That has absolutely nothing to do with you and what you did.  It's a high school student's excuse when he's the one getting caught smoking in the bathroom. 

I don't understand a word of that, except that maybe you don't think 1+1=2 applies to you because you're special.  Hopefully you won't just get a signature ban but a permanent one.  I can't stand liars and excuse makers like you in ban appeal threads.

Word, that's the first thing I thought as well.  Too many people are here just to use their signature space for advertisement, and someone ought to consider themselves lucky that they got off with a temporary (albeit lengthy) signature ban instead of a permaban.

Lol.  No time for reading the rules when you're so busy writing I guess.

So have many other members, but I assume you took the lazy and dishonest method of producing posts thought plagiarism, so right now you need to de-dazzle yourself.  You blew your chance.

Sorry, I had to post this here--it's not so bad that it's funny, but it made me slap my head.

The thread the post was in was about the bitcoin and ETH futures markets, and this Hero member contributed this gem of a shitpost:


I haven't looked at this Einstein's post history, but I'm now wondering how a member who registered here in 2011 could misunderstand the meaning of 'futures' as it was used in the OP of that thread.  I'm actually wondering if this might be a purchased account.

Edit:

I'm 99.9% sure this is a bought account, because whoever wrote that hunk of garbage above probably would not have written this very eloquent post back in 2011:


I'll have to look into this further, and I know this thread isn't the place for discussion about it.

Yep, most definitely.

I don't even think it was all that long ago, but I do remember that the discussion went on with no input from Theymos and ultimately no resolution.  I'm really happy about all these bans that just happened, but I really don't think Theymos is going to put any restrictions on bounty managers, regardless of what the community thinks.  Believe me, I'd love to see some guidelines laid down for bounty managers and how they should have to conduct the application process and post monitoring and everything else, but I'm not going to bet that's going to happen.

Yep, I just took a look at their home page and it definitely looks like shit an exit-scamming exchange would write.  I never used Cryptopia, but I do feel bad for everyone who had coins there.  Unbelievable.  It's stuff like this that makes me really nervous about depositing even small amounts of crypto on an exchange.  This last thing with Binance had me paranoid for about a week while they had deposits and withdrawals suspended.  Binance customers got lucky, I guess.  Cryptopia customers got screwed.

Are they?  This just happened, so isn't the outcome at this point at least a little uncertain?  I would assume that there are a lot of pissed off people who had coins on Cryptopia who might want to take some action, much like the Cryptsy situation (but I'm not even sure what the final outcome was of that one). 

I never tried cloud mining thanks to all the negative stuff I heard about it on this forum, and I don't really want to get scammed.  I'm not sure how profitable it is even if you're working with a legitimate cloud mining service, but it makes a lot more sense to me to use the money that you were going to give to the cloud mining operation and just buy bitcoin flat-out.  Given how volatile the market is, there's a decent chance to make money simply by using a buy-and-hold strategy, and you don't have to worry about what someone else is doing with your money.

And outside of bitcoin, there are plenty of PoS coins that you can stake to earn dividends/interest from.  They're definitely risky, but again, you're in control of where your money is and not some questionable cloud mining operation.

I gave you merits for being so helpful to OP, even though this thread is a couple weeks old at least.  I've had similar problems with Binance and Firefox/Opera issues and had to figure out tricks to make things work--and it can be frustrating.

And yep, Yobit is indeed shady.  At this point I don't think anyone should be using them as their exchange of choice.  If you need a coin that isn't listed on one of the better ones, I'd say go for it but you're still trying your luck with Yobit.  If you ever run into an issue, you can forget about them giving you any help.

Well you've been around quite a while and you've interacted with a number of members here--at least through posts, which I remember reading.  Surely there must be some members you'd trust enough to put them on your custom list, even if you wouldn't necessarily trust them with your life or large sums of money.  It's not like a custom trust list has to be extensive.

For new members, I can see that this could be an issue when you don't even know who anyone is.  But it's not the end of the world if they just use a suggested list temporarily.  They might not even care about the trust system at all.

Now, now, he was asking a genuine question although I don't think OP seriously would have a problem creating his own trust list.  I think he's been a member here long enough to know at least who NOT to trust and probably has a short list of candidates for inclusions in his own list.

Yeah, I'm not sure about that.  Plus from a campaign's point of view, they get less advertising space with a lower-ranked account--that's obviously why they pay Heros and Legendaries a higher rate.

The recent purge was brutal, but it was appropriate and sends a very strong message that plagiarism is not tolerated here.  Obviously a lot of members don't seem to understand that fact, but they probably will now.  And as far as campaigns not having enough good posters as a result of the bans....who cares?  Bitcointalk isn't an employment agency, and the opportunity to be able to earn money from posting is a privilege, and one that gets taken for granted and abused to no end.  It's not Theymos's problem if a bunch of members suddenly got booted from their campaigns.

Well I thought Binance was going to bite the dust with their recent hack, but they turned out to be solid.  Every other time I've read about a big hack or security breach on a crypto exchange, it's turned out to be the death knell for them.

I never used Cryptopia, but I'm familiar with the name just from reading about them on this forum, and if they just went under....that's not good.  Not good for anyone.

That is definitely not cool and it just goes to show how this is still the wild west as far as crypto exchanges go.  I predict in 10 years from now, assuming bitcoin and altcoins are still around, that there are going to be only 2-3 big exchanges and that they're going to be tightly regulated.

Don't PM me about it, because I'm not removing the tag.  When I reconsider a negative I left, I look at a member's trust since the time I left it.  If they've earned some positive trust or somehow shown that they've become a useful member of the forum and have changed their ways, I'll remove the neg. 

None of that applies to OP.  He's done nothing but earn more negs from DT members since I left mine.

As stated in title, I'm looking for $50 worth of Reddcoin at the coinmarketcap price, which would be about 23,353 RDD.  I'll even include an extra $2 tip if someone can help me out with this.

Please don't ask me to send first unless you're at least a green-trusted member or I've dealt with you before.

Drop me a PM if you're interested, as I might miss updates to this thread.

Local rules:  Don't post here unless you're interested in doing this deal.  PayPal is risky, and yes, people need to know about that.  However, I have done many PP deals and have never charged back and it isn't my intention to scam anyone.

Also, this will be a neutral feedback transaction assuming it's successful in the first place.

Thanks.

Edit:  Deal done with petahasher, much appreciated!!

I get that English probably isn't your first language, but NEO isn't a con, it's a coin.  There is a huge difference in that misspelling.

I'm hoping investors get interested in it because it's useful, not because of the price momentum.  When people flock to buy something when the price is rising, that usually doesn't end well.

I've recently gotten interested in NEO myself and have been accumulating it for a couple of weeks now.  It's the ability to earn GAS that's caught my eye, because it's even better than an interest-earning bank account.  That's why I like PoS coins--it's a great alternative to mining, which I'd also love to do if it weren't so unprofitable.  But yeah, I'm happy NEO has popped up in price a little bit, but I actually wish it would stay lower for a little longer, because I plan on buying more when I can muster up the scratch to do so.

True, but pockets have been getting picked since the beginning of pockets.  What we have here is just another form of it.

What amazes me is that these thieves went on a burger binge with the stolen loot--it's almost comical if it didn't suck so bad for the victims.  And I'm not sure if McDonald's is ready for bitcoin yet, for many of the same reasons why most fast food franchises aren't.  Confirmation times is the big one that sticks out in my mind from their side, and network fees are a concern from the consumer side.  We all know that there can be points where the network is congested and both fees and wait times are increased, and that makes it impractical for fast food, fast coffee, or fast anything. 

If anything, McD's would probably create their own coin instead of using bitcoin.  But I'm not sure if they're ready to adopt blockchain tech anytime soon.  We'll see, though.