Test:

I got the "Checking your browser before accessing bitcointalk.org." message when I clicked "Preview", after that it works again.

So: someone gives you $200 collateral. Out of that $100, you give him $100 as a loan. Then he has to pay you back $120, after which you give him $200 again?
You're either really dumb or really smart. Why would anyone pay you to be able to use half of their own money? I've seen a similar scheme before, and I can't figure out why.

If the casino's website is down, would it be possible to announce this Google form there? I can imagine many users who find an offline website don't know they have to look here.

One of the things they check is indeed if you sent money to a centralized exchange In the past.

Unless you decide you want to deposit the cash (in a large amount) to your bank again.

The banks just tries to cover their asses, especially after the huge fines they've had recently for not doing enough against money laundering. Even though, as far as I know, those fines were based on fiat money laundering.

Yep. It may vary per country, but I'd expect a letter asking many questions (just shy of the color of my underware).

They'll also ask for a copy of your taxes, including your savings at other banks. Privacy? Lol. If you don't like it, they'll close your account.

Not really: the car is traceable in your name.

I think the proper term in English is a wealth tax, but indeed, filing it and paying your annual taxes avoids jail time if you ever buy a jet or something.

You'll be fine, as long as you answer all privacy invading questions your bank asks.

From what I've seen, using an established exchange makes the bank "easier" because they know at least the other party isn't a criminal. Now let's say you sell 1 BTC and receive $20,000 tainted dollars P2P. Then what?

Great! That would solve it

I noticed that earlier too, good cleanup

We've been over this: feedback is different than in/exclusions.

Timelord2067 didn't reach DT until recently.

So you're saying I should just exclude him? I was trying to not need that.

Today's achievement: I've reached 20,000 posts!



from Imgflip Meme Generator

And by posting this, I've spoiled it

On 2020-08-26, Timelord2067 gave hilariousandco, hilariousetc and hilarious* this negative feedback (Reference link):
Just recently, Timelord2067 reached DefaultTrust (again).

I think this is Trust abuse:

"The forum" shows this is Trust abuse as it has nothing to do with trade risks:


Theymos thinks this is Trust abuse:

Negative feedback isn't your diary.

Now why this topic, I hear you ask? And why not just add Timelord2067 to my list of Trust exclusions? Because I like some/many of the feedbacks he sent! If only he'd omit the diary part, the remainder could be useful.
It also helps I'm currently not on DT1, and Timelord2067's DT2-strength is (1). That means he'll need 2 Trust exclusions to be removed from DT2. I'll exclude him if this feedback is still negative by the time I win the DT1 lottery again.

My earlier more subtle attempts didn't help:
It's ironic Timelord2067 accuses hilariousetc of Trust abuse.

I don't think this is something to worry about: hilariousetc has no inclusions, so won't reach DT1. it's on DT2, but exclusions on that depth don't influence the rest of the DT-system.
It just means hilarious doesn't want to see your feedback from his "etc" account. It might influence the trust ratings as seen by the users who included hilariousetc on their Trust lists, but those users are experienced enough to remove the inclusion if they don't want this.

---

---

I think this discussion fits better in DefaultTrust changes.

---

---

I've said it before in another topic: you've reached DT1 now, and I think your negative feedback on hilariousandco (and alt accounts) is no correct use of the Trust system. Actually, it's Trust abuse. I'll dedicated a topic to this.

Who's alt are you, and what's in it for you? If you believe someone deserves a tag, why don't you do it yourself?

Not all users follow every drama thread on the Gambling board all the time.

Unlikely.

Update:
Starting point of the week: Trust list for: Royse777 (Trust: #  +6 / =0 / -2) (DT1! (9) 1763 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
Or use https://loyce.club/profile.html?id=366632 or BPIP for easier navigation.

As always, the top-navigation-bar will be updated the coming hours to days.

DT-members with negative strength aren't counted (by me). Wolwoo was at (-18) back then.

The election has nothing to do with exclusions.

See Default trust breakdown, scroll all the way down.

Yes.

Instantly. The interesting part is that excluded DT1-members can still vote for other DT1-members (by including or excluding them) and adjust their DT1-strength. But they can't vote for DT2-members.

Yes.

Mycelium.

No. But it may be a problem identifying each payment (the labels in your wallet won't be restored) and your privacy (each one of the 200 people who paid you can now see the 199 other payments that belong to you).

Proof it.

A team can be made out of 3 people.

Proof it and I'll tag him (her?) myself.

OP is happily spitting out insubstantial shitposts pretending to be "engaged":

This is typical for bump spam or Newbies trying to rank up. Welcome to my ignore list.

I didn't see this Bitlucy drama until yesterday, when OP posted in Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here! So I haven't read everything yet.

I just read through this guy's post history. What surprises me, is that Bitlucy was only online for a few days after registration, and didn't address any of the problems.
Running a casino is usually very profitable. "100% deposit bonuses" are usually designed to require enough wagering to make it EV- for the player. That means the casino should earn money, which means they don't have to scam users.
Not being able to withdraw $1000 makes it look like they're broke.

Did Bitlucy ever show proof of bankroll?

@Royse777: davidr_22 posted his withdrawal problem on May 25. Instead of addressing it, you started the Avatar campaign the next day.

Obviously we can only see what happens in public, and what I see doesn't look good.

In my country we have a saying, which roughly translates to "trust comes on foot and goes on horseback".  We always have to prove ourselves all the time, because a reputation that took years to build can be destroyed in hours.

It doesn't look like they're interested in fixing problems when you say they cut all ties with Bitcointalk. Sure, Bitcointalk can be hostile, but in this case it looks like it's deserved.

Can you comment on the one withdrawal issue I cherry-picked above?

I don't think he's going to find this topic.

That's not much time for users to find this form, especially if their problem was ignored for weeks and was only linked in the OP of the main thread one day before the deadline.

This is a terrible excuse to delay withdrawals. If you update software, at least process or transfer the existing withdrawal requests.

I feel the same.

This is always the risk of "lending" your reputation to promote something.

---

---

If they're truely willing to resolve all problems, I'd say the way to do this is by giving full transparency. Start by providing proof of funds, create a public list of all complains, and resolve them. All this doesn't have to take more than a day.

CoinCycling.Club is available! Temping, but I don't think I'll have the time to figure it all out.

I like the idea, and I happen to have a (donated) dedicated Xeon server with 16 GB that's mainly idling.

I'm thinking of names: Loycabi? NotACoinJoin? CoinJoinAnything? TaintThis?

My favourite mobile wallet sold out advertising a scam, my favourite Blockchair website does it too. It sucks, but money makes loyalties flexible.

Would this be something we, as a community, could provide? Say we start with one CoinJoin transaction per week, on a fixed time. So anyone willing to join can plan their transaction as long as they're not in a rush.