I used to check that list every week or so, just for the hell of it and for whatever reason I stopped--but it doesn't surprise me I'm not in the top 10.  That's actually a good thing, as I give out a lot of merits; it means there are some die-hard merit sources out there spreading the love. 

Just speaking for myself here, I usually don't have sMerits left over when it's replenishment time.  Usually not even personal ones are left over.

Those people inviting you might see you as their personal ATM machine--watch out for that. 

The fact that newbies are the ones making the scam accusations doesn't surprise me.  Even if you were a senior member and got scammed, you might have a very good reason not to broadcast your gambling habits to everyone here, so creating a new account for the accusation might be appropriate.  In any case, that's not something I see as sinister.

To answer OP's question, I'd say that if cloudbet was proven to be a scam it'd be ill-advised for members to continue to advertise for them.  We've had this situation before with ICOs and other casinos, if I'm not mistaken.  I ditched a sig campaign in the middle of it a couple of years ago after cryptodevil made a scam accusation against them (I can't recall the name of it).  It just so happened that the proof cryptodevil presented at the time of my exit turned out to be insufficient, but I definitely did not want my reputation linked to anything fishy being advertised in my signature space. 

That said, I don't know if cloudbet has unequivocally been shown to be a scam.  Yes, they have accusations against them, but a lot of these businesses do.  Is the community ready to tag anyone promoting Yobit?  I know their campaign isn't active, but my question is...how much proof is enough?

There was a good reason for your negs, but you just don't understand where you fucked up and never will.  I don't trust you based on the 0.1BTC you tried to get out of someone who looked like he was getting scammed, vaguely claiming you could help and not saying how, and making a bunch of other shit up after the fact.  That's why you have red trust, and it's entirely valid.

Learn to quote posts properly, BTW.  I did not write this:

You did.

Ultimately if that's the question you're asking, then I would say those two things shouldn't have much to do with each other--but I have a hard time believing Theymos didn't consider the issue when he made the most recent changes to the DT system.  I also don't think he wouldn't realize who he'd be putting on or removing from DT1 when he made those changes, e.g., Lauda on, OgNasty off.  Don't know anything about Theymos, but he seems like an engineer trying to optimize a system with what he has to work with.  Unfortunately all of the parts don't quite fit all together perfectly, and the result is what we have today with the trust system.

I'd be interested to hear what Theymos has to say about Cobra's input on the matter (don't know how to make the Greek symbol in his username).  I suspect to a somewhat neutral 3rd party it does look like madness going on and I can see the desire to just scrap the system entirely--but I don't know if that's a great idea or not.  I'll have to check to see if Theymos replied or not.

Anyway, it's not about grammar.  People do earn merits on local boards, and members do earn merits even if they write horribly broken English if the posts are helpful enough. 

Agree, which is why I'm not going to tag the guy for this--he's not a "real" account buyer, although a big part of me wishes he didn't demonstrate to everyone how easy it is to make money from this sort of scheme and didn't give account sellers his money.  That second part only contributes to the account-dealing economy and encourages account farmers to keep at it.

Coolcryptovator has the right idea here, and I'm glad he's against account sales, but in my opinion he probably jumped the gun on this one.  And no, I'm not going to leave a counter-positive.

Well, Quickseller is the type of guy who thinks that if you don't vigorously mount a defense against an allegation, it's evidence that you're guilty, e.g., Lauda and the accusation that he/she has some sort of addiction to unspecified pills.  The funny thing is that QS isn't an idiot, and I'd expect him to know better than to go for that kind of anti-logic, but I'm guessing that when it suits his agenda he'll go for whatever he thinks might work.

qwk, you just wasted what I suspect was a good chunk of time with an explanation I could have predicted the outcome of beforehand.  This is why I'd suggested just ignoring cryptohunter and stop jumping through the hoops he puts up for his entertainment.  Nothing you write, regardless of how rational it is or how much sense it makes, is going to appease him.  His goal is not to be appeased but entertained. 

The ito-marketing one?  Yeah, I saw that and was wondering about it.  Thought my eyes were playing tricks on me for a minute, not that it surprised me one bit.

When you start off attacking the whistleblower, it never looks good.  Just saying. 

I agree, not that I'd ever invest any money in these things anyway, even if there were no red flags visible.  With the number of scams going on in the ICO space, if there's even a hint of dishonesty you should run away as fast as you can from the project.

I respectfully disagree.  As long as his feedback is fair, there shouldn't be a problem if he doesn't completely understand the mechanics of the trust system--and I bet this thread is a pretty good education for him, anyway.  Cut him a little bit of slack for not completely comprehending this weird, intricate system that Theymos (I assume) created; he was fair with Joel_Jantsen's feedback and sort of proved he wasn't some power-tripping hothead bent on negging his way to fame and fortune on the forum.

Props for doing that.

Gotta love a post like this one, which means absolutely nothing.  The other posts above this one aren't much better, btw.

Jet Cash, this forum is like a hornet's nest right now--and I'm sure you're well aware of that fact.  Add to this the fact that even on a good day it's infested by scammers and its user base represents people from every corner of the world with varying degrees of literacy and motivation for being here and, well, you get the result that you're seeing.

What projects are you talking about, anyway?  What fun stuff?  I'd actually love to have a real-life get together with some members here, maybe a barbecue or something with coffee and name tags.  Anonymity and distrust seem to rule the day here, though and I doubt I'll ever get to meet a member face-to-face.  Too bad Jet Cash is in the UK (I think).  Can you put some jet ski skids on your van or something and make your way to the east coast of the US?

I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but I basically know what PoS is.  My question is why anyone would really want to own a PoS coin other than for staking and if these coins are going to have any utility outside of people just keeping them for the interest they generate. 

It just seems to me that regardless of how many coins you generate, if the price doesn't at least remain stable you're going to have an asset that continuously loses value.  That's what I'm seeing in coins like PIVX right now (the only PoS coin I really watch), which has lost something like 90% of its value in the past year.  Nobody is going to spend these things, so my guess is that they'll have even less adoption than a coin like bitcoin.

My thoughts exactly.  I'm old enough to have been burned with manufactured collectibles made by the millions before, especially cards.  Even if there were an extremely limited amount, I'd be leery of buying anything just for the sake of owning something rare.  That's not to say this idea doesn't appeal to me, because it does, but I think my days as a card collector are pretty much over.

Except if there were any bitcointalk-related cards....then I might just have to buy them.  There was some discussion a few months back about such a thing, but it didn't really go anywhere. 

Pretty much no one cares about this except them, and I'd be willing to wager that all of those accounts are controlled by only a handful of actual people.  I smell extreme stinky sockpuppeteering in the breeze. 

Oh, wait.  There must be hundreds of other members who care deeply about the anti-DT agenda but who are too afraid of speaking up, lest they get tagged for voicing their contrarian opinions. 

The community is deciding on who gets into DT; everyone on that list plus a few others don't like "the community".  This has turned into an insane power-grab attempt by a bunch of extremely loud trolls, saying the same thing over and over.  If you don't like it, go with the even more centralized option of whining to Theymos to fix it. 

This is a crap statement, and I remember the exact same thing being said about jobs numbers under the Obama administration--and my guess is that people have said it under every president for as long as jobs data has been released.  It's part of the conspiracy theory mindset.

What, the US economy?  Aside from the debt, we're not doing that badly.  Certainly much better than 2008-2013, and Trump was nowhere near the white house at that point.  I'm not an ardent Trump supporter by any means, but he's doing much better than I expected (I kept those expectations very low).  I'm just hoping that the democrats will have a better candidate for the next election, or else what's the point?

I just bought some silver for the hell of it, and I bought it with bitcoin too.  While I don't agree with gold/silver permabulls, I definitely get a bad vibe about the world these days and suspect something bad might be coming around the corner.  That's not usually a feeling I get, either.  Now is probably a good time to be stacking metals at the very least, and there's actually been some movement upward in the precious metals market so I could be correct.  Not so sure about crypto in a SHTF scenario but short-term at least, I think bitcoin is probably going to trend up.

I don't know what that quote is or what you mean by including it here.  There's no context to it, and I don't recall writing it but I'm sure I could have.

I'd rather hear from allyouracid himself before making any judgements.  However, I don't think it's appropriate for a member to leave 100BTC in the "risked amount" field if that's not true, and giving a neg without a reference link is not good practice either.  We'll see what happens.

Yeah, it shows up red (depending on who you've got in your trust list)--so allyouracid has got to be on DT2.  

Frankly I'm surprised you got booted out of your sig campaign because of that, but rules are rules.  You're not a scammer or shitposter, and allyouracid's feedback was obviously retaliatory in nature.  I'm sure there's going to be more of these situations as the DT2 list grows.  You have my sympathy, Joel_Jantsen.

Edit:  Did you have a red trust on him?  I don't see any right now, and he didn't leave a reference link AND wrote in 100BTC was at risk in the trust he left for you.  That's nutty.

I'm still waiting to be accused of giving merits to lower-ranked accounts as a means of somehow politically influencing them to be on "my side".  That accusation hasn't come yet, but it seems to be the next logical step for cryptohunter and the rest of the trolls.  The members on that list of his are never going to do anything right in the trolls' minds, regardless of what those members do.

These members are all pretty good posters overall, and there are many others too.  It shouldn't be surprising that they've earned quite a bit of merit for their efforts.  I'd also point out (again) that the number of sMerits I've given to these members as a percentage of the total amount I've given out is, I think, relatively small.  I have not done the math and am only speaking for myself here.

Most of the merits I've given have not been source merits, either.  The vast majority of sMerits I've given to anyone on the above list have been ones I've earned.  I only got made a merit source a few months ago, and my allotment was pretty small to begin with.  And take a look at the number of members who aren't on this list that I've merited; you'll hardly see evidence of abuse.

Lol, how do you live with yourself if you're in NE?  You must not be a native, else you'd be lynched in the streets for such treason. 

That post is so bad, it's almost offensive. 

There was a discussion today in Meta about merit sources and their ignore lists, with the issue of whether it's fair for sources to have people on ignore--then I read posts like this that reinforce my confidence that I'm doing the right thing by maintaining an enormous ignore list, since it's members like this that I have on ignore. 

Meh.  That's not really a horrible post, though I can see how it would ruffle someone's feathers.  It's definitely not politically correct.