I prefer not to send unsollicited PMs, and my assumption was you could (and should) have known about the red flags by reading their ANN thread.

That seems like a good solution

I can't help but wonder though: do you research what you're promoting before accepting it?

My guess: they have no money so they can't sign anything and made up a lousy excuse.

It's usually poor people who think other poor people are impressed if they mention large amounts of money. If you want bragging rights here: sign a message.

Right. But this isn't only about campaign participants.

The forum describes negative feedback as "You think that trading with this person is high-risk.".

That's not necessary, but omitting the statements would have been better. Just "a new mixer" instead of saying they're trusted (trusted by who exactly?).

If it were up to me: > /dev/null

Obviously they're not going to say they're not trusted and unsafe, but clearly they're not trusted. I'd expect a campaign manager to see through that, instead of copying the claim.

In my book, it takes a lot more than getting paid to endorse a company.

I don't really worry about such accusations. I've seen other mixers that didn't give me a single reason to doubt their intentions. It's not as if I'm accusing all of them without any reason to be suspicious.

Trust is earned, not claimed.

Right.

I'd say there's a difference between a "xx Signature Campaign" and a "Trusted and Safe xx Signature Campaign".

I've added the part that triggered me to add Royse777's case:
My main reason to create the topic wasn't Royse777, but it's a green trusted user who promotes a site who's ANN I've been following in the past weeks. Also, it's too early for a scam accusation, hence the topic in Reputation. And I needed a Reference link for neutral feedback.

Thanks for adding this. I checked for it, but only at the bottom (and clearly didn't read the entire Notes).
Still, I can't agree with adding "Trusted and Safe" to the title.

I'm not sure.
I really like eddie13's take on this:
I'm not sure. That's why my feedback is neutral. I believe the risk deserves a warning.

Considering how Royse777's casino promotion ended in him being tagged by several DT-members, I'm curious what the community thinks of the following:

A week ago, Gianluca95 (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) created a signature campaign with "Trusted and Safe BTC Mixing" in the title. That's a very strong vouch, without any proof whatsoever. Gianluca95 refers to their ANN thread, in which it was mentioned 5 days before the signature campaign was started that there's no reason to trust this site.

The user (Shaker_finance) who promotes the site shows red flags that I've seen many times before. Typically, this is how a scammer respond when someone doubts their legitimacy.

Some examples:
I don't trust sites that claim to be trusted. That's up to the users to decide.
It sounds like they don't want to share yet at what amount they'll pull an exit scam.
Hardcoded "live mixing", I've seen that before. Needless to say: that mixer pulled an exit scam.
He's either hiding his lack of funds, or he found a massive vulnerability in Bitcoin! My money is on the former.
Right. Some third party future action is supposed to convince us now that the site is safe.
Right....
I've seen this before too: using large numbers to convince people, instead of a simple signed message. Anyone can make up a large number, not many people can sign a message from such an Bitcoin address.
There's the excuses, always nice to see the team goes on vacation right after launching.

And there's the character attacks:
This kind of language typically comes from scammers who see their "business model" evaporate. I've seen it so many times.
And there's Trust abuse:


When this site scams someone, which I think is quite likely to happen, will Gianluca95 take the fall for them and get tagged?

---

---

Just 3 days ago (4 days after Gianluca95 started the signature campaign), he left Royse777 the following positive feedback: I don't know what to make of this.

Update: Kraken.com now became so slow, I couldn't even enter the 2FA code anymore before it expired. When typing, each character took a very long time to show up, and by the time it was done, the code had expired.
I tried a Private Window, and that made the site much faster. So it has something to do with my browser after all. I cleared 27 Cookies (989 KB in Cookies is HUGE!), but that didn't help either. I don't really want to delete all my browser data though, that's annoying on many other sites. And using a Private Window means additional email verification each time I log in.

To be continued....

That "green" is barely noticeable on my screen, and I bet I'm not alone.

I'm wondering why the security feature that stops fake links to be labeled "Bitcointalk.org" didn't kick in. Example:
http://google.com
Converting the text to upper case answers it: BITCOINTALK.OГG.

---

---

I dodged the bullet there

It looks okay in my browser, without overlapping other lines.
That being said, I don't think the topic belongs on the Services board. "Join Telegram" is just spam. Reported.

Apart from the fact there's only one Admin doing forum upgrades, there's also a risk factor in each change. So anything that can be created by a user script, is safer for the forum. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
It may be in the new forum software, but that's been a promise from long before I joined Bitcointalk. Again: I wouldn't hold my breath

Then build your own And while you're at it: allow others to use it too.

How about a web page? See:
It gives you a web page (example). Feel free to use Tor browser.

It's a scam bound to happen when the casino doesn't have a safeguard against winning more than the bankroll. If the maximum profit per bet is $30, you can have a casino with $3000 bankroll. By the time users have won $1000 in total, the maximum profit should be reduced to $20. That way, you'll never run out of money and never have to scam. You may run out of users but at least you'll be honest.

I'm curious what part of "expect nothing" lead to creating this topic.

Ranking up isn't difficult for people with half decent posts. Some people post on boards that don't get many Merits, and once in a while people quickly gain a few hundred Merits after they've been "highlighted" for that reason. In your case, I quickly checked your post history, and it reminded me of this:

Example: post #89 (written by OP) in a topic:
This is what I call a "generic shitpost". It's okay to read, but doesn't add anything. Anyone with half a brain knows this already.

You now have 968 posts. Here's a challenge (which you're free to ignore):

• Go over your post history
• If a post doesn't add anything, delete it
• Create links to your best posts in Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source
• When you post there, please refer to this post (so I don't lose track if you follow up after a while)
• I'm not promising a lot of Merit, but I do promise I'll review your list (I can't get myself to read your 968 posts)

I'm more surprised you have 1 Merit, which is more than you deserve considering most of your posts are literally the same low effort copy/pasting:
Obviously you haven't read the unofficial forum rules, otherwise you would have seen this:

You may want to rephrase that

It's inevitable, and it's okay

That means you'll get an email when someone posts in a topic, not when someone mentions you.

Update:
Starting point to avoid loading the large index page: Trust list for: Dabs (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1 (-2) 890 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP).
Or use BPIP or https://loyce.club/profile.html?id=54791 for easy navigation.

New and wiped Trust lists in the past week:

I'd use different users for each node, so you don't have to change default locations (maybe only ports) and don't risk accidentally messing up the other installation.

If you need a GUI:
As user "user2":
I've used this to run several Core clones for Forkcoins, but stopped doing it because dbcache settings eat too much memory.

Once your OS is compromised, you can't trust anything anymore. Although I haven't seen this happen yet, I can imagine at some point a compromised OS can make your wallet send funds to an address different than the address shown on your screen. A hardware wallet prevents this, assuming you thoroughly check the address on your hardware wallet before sending funds.