My take: not knowing which site is secure will stop users from using them. That's a bonus on top of banning the ones that didn't scam.

You, like governments, mix (pun intended) the word "anonymize" and "launder". If I give you a $100 bill, and you give me another one in return, we've both anonymized the money (as long as neither of us talks about it). But if you have $10 million criminal money, exchanging it for another pile of $10 million isn't going to help you spend it. You'll need a car wash in Albuquerque for that.

Merit doesn't mean "like" or "agree. In this case, it means it's worth reading, and not spam. And I'm loaded in sMerit.

Only one of those 2 statements can be true.

Listening to the Dutch Cryptocast, they anticipated that in about 10 years, the result of the halving won't be enough to make any price changes. I expect the price reaction to be less this time, because the amount reduction is less each halving. But I'm probably not the only one, and the fact that something is anticipated it can influence the result.

Could it be their business model changed after the mixer ban on Bitcointalk? I can imagine they lost customers and advertising, which may have changed their long-term perspective into realizing an exit scam is more profitable.

Or:
Could it be they were actually "the bad guys" who ran out of "bad money" to exchange, so they decided to keep everything now?

That would mean publicly denouncing Human Rights:

I'm already required to report "other" funds, such as Bitcoin, to taxes. And considering thousands of tax employees have access, and the tax authorities don't keep track of who checks which files, I wouldn't be so sure none of them can have bad intentions.

In computing, counting starts from 0. 16 bit: 0-16535. CPUs: /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0. Time: 0:00-23:59. Months and days are an exception, although if you use seconds there are no days, and time starts from Unix Epoch Time 0 (GMT: Thursday 1 January 1970 00:00:00).
I like starting from 0. Even bank accounts follow this logic

Since you mentioned me: all I download are your backups (31 GB so far), and that seems to be working just fine (no new backup yet).

Find an old address you posted, sign a message proving you still own it, and see if you can convince account recovery team that you weren't the person who got the account banned.

My gut feeling tells me you're the real owner, but my gut feeling isn't enough to get you unbanned.

Why do you even care about receiving 0.5 sat from anyone? I don't care about fractions of cents, even though half a cent is worth a lot more than a whole satoshi. The exchanges I use count cents behind the decimal, and if I close my account, I lose them. That's fine.

If pegging out costs you $100 in transaction fees, it's only worth it for large amounts. Most people won't want to do it several times per month. That's rent money or food money.

I'm curious where you read that:
It literally says it's for Bitcoin services, and I've reported many topics over the years saying "Non-Bitcoin service", after which they got moved (or deleted). There's no need to say it's not for altcoins, altcoins are not Bitcoin.

Great! They've been spamming Bitcointalk for years, time to move them to altcoins where they belong. Reported saying:
Update: it was moved to Bounties (Altcoins).

Typo:
This should be "child board of Marketplace".

When in doubt, check Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules:

I don't care about millisatoshis, and I'm totally find rounding them when settling on-chain. That's franky's thing to bring up, and it's kinda pointless to even discuss if you pay an on-chain transaction fee that's a million times larger. And that's the problem with LN: I know it's locked, but what's the point if you can't afford the fee for on-chain settlement?

Are you saying you ordered Dropshot? I didn't expect it to be available in Germany, I've never seen it in a shop there. But indeed, I can find it online on German websites.

Comparing Bitcoin fees with shipping costs reminds me of comparing pidgeons with the internet

I don't know Lobstr wallet, but your screenshot shows Steller Lumens. That's not Bitcoin. Someone may have created a BS token and called it BTC, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin. You can only receive Bitcoin on a Bitcoin address, which you can for instance create in Electrum. What you're doing has nothing to do with Bitcoin, and chances are someone is trying to scam you if they sent you something that isn't Bitcoin.

Thanks again for your flawless timing!

Allow me to share my booze of the evening: Dropshot!

It's liquorice in alcohol, and I've never met any non-Dutch who likes it Who's up for the challenge?
It turns out I bought the wrong one though: only 14.9%, while there's also a 20% version. I'm not sure if it's shrinkflation on alcohol (that would be terrible!), or they make different versions. It's even the same brand and the bottle looks the same.

Why the alcohol? Well, my wife's gone until tomorrow, and I'm alone with the kids. They're behaving quite well, and in bed already (on schedule). Dropshot time, it's been a while!

This should be added to the forum's image proxy (@theymos).

They are indeed smaller, which makes conversion to JPEG a waste of data (and quality).

Ignoring the unproven PM statement, I don't see what's wrong with asking users to change their Trust list. I've argued to exclude someone on several occasions, and if the arguments are convincing, that can work. As far as I know, the DefaultTrust system is supposed to work like this:

That being said, I was surprised by the number of Trust exclusions in a single week. I'm also surprised this caused so much drama: theymos made a decision, if you don't like that decision, blame theymos. But it's not going to change anything. I was also surprised by the neutral tags left by BitcoinGirl.Club, but since it's neutral, it shouldn't be a big deal. The wording is such that I can't take it seriously: "Scamming the idea of".... Wait what?! Followed by: "caused Jambler a reputational damage".... Wait a minute? Which one is it? The first one was scamming an idea, but the "idea scammer" got reputation damage and somehow that's a problem? Which one is it?

Nullum crimen sine lege.

Are you saying you'll leave Bitcointalk because someone was mean to you?

You need to be more specific. You can't just list a few Bitcoin addresses and hope the owner sees it, there's about a billion used Bitcoin addresses out there.

You're going to need to prove you own $50000 in Bitcoin if you want to be taken seriously.