That's probably a lie.  Even if it's the truth, it still is an admission that you're an idiot because this:

is utter nonsense.  80% of the people I see at my job daily have criminal records, and I support them in their efforts to get off drugs and get on with their lives.  Does that make me a criminal?  You're claiming someone is guilty by association, and you're stretching that out so far that by your pseudo-logical reasoning you could probably claim anyone here is a scammer if you wanted to, just to fit your own agenda.  Note: my statement here isn't implying that I think Lauda is a criminal.  Just pointing out the idiocy of this reasoning.

I don't think you really understand what the word 'vouch' means.  By your words above, there's no way malevolent could have vouched for it since he didn't even review it.  You did claim "trusted vouch" in your thread title:


I'm assuming you meant TMAN's words about it, because he's the only trusted member who stated that the method could work, but he didn't actually try it out.

I don't check the price of gold every day, but it seems like that strong performance is just a fluke--it's still right around $1300, which is where it's been stuck for quite a while now.  I think it is just noise and not any indication of a bull trend, and yep, just like with bitcoin trading sideways for months on end.

I think a lot of investors got burned leading up to the 2011 ATH in gold, and I also think a lot of money that investors would have otherwise put into gold or other commodities might have ended up in the crypto market.  It's just my opinion, but I don't think that even after 8 years people are going to be rushing back into the metals market with as much enthusiasm as they did throughout the 2000s.  Newer, younger traders don't want something as old-fashioned and staid as gold--bitcoin is much more up their alley.  Plus you'd think with all the economic and political unrest that's happening globally that people would in fact be looking for a safe haven asset right now, but apparently it isn't gold or silver or their appetite for risk is exceptionally large.

This thread is from December, and nobody scooped all of these up?  I'll assume you're out, but I have to ask:  am I too late to get one of these? 

True, but he's smarter than average IMO.  Very good with math & data analysis, and it shows--much like when nullius was around and used to write masterpieces just for his typical posts.  It's true that starting from scratch and earning tons of merits is possible, but it just isn't going to happen for the average newbie. 

I'd like to see just this graph, because we look to be so correlated it's ridiculous.  I don't think either of us had that initial jump in merits, either.  It's interesting to see how that happened, because you can clearly see how crazy the early days of the merit system were and how quickly everyone's sMerits ran out (merit sources excluded).  People were handing out insane amounts of merit in the first few days and probably didn't realize how important they'd become.

Thanks for the graphs, LoyceV.

Agreed.  Trust isn't moderated in the main sections in English and there shouldn't be some sort of double standard for any other section.  Whatever is happening in the Russian section as far as the trust system goes doesn't need to have moderator involvement--that's outside the scope of a mod's job as far as I can see.

It kind of makes me wonder whether newbies are aware of QS's "self-escrow" history.  I put that in quotes, because there's no such thing in the real world and if you searched for it you'd probably only get results from this forum.  There are also still some folks who don't think escrowing your own deals using an alt account is totally fine, and that just flabbergasts me.  Anyone who's got QS on his trust list ought to think about that a little. 

As far as including cryptohunter on a trust list, I would expect that from his alt accounts and people who don't fully comprehend the extent of BS he's writing.  It's not just a smear campaign; it's psychosis masquerading as helpfulness.  Sort of like what digaran was doing, though I have my doubts as to whether they're one and the same.

I only realized he existed when I found out he'd excluded me from his trust list.  I've never had any interaction with him and don't know who he is--so either he's trying to make a trust list the exact opposite of Lauda's, or he genuinely doesn't trust me based on things I've written.  I suspect it's the former. 

Honestly I don't see a problem with the Russian section trying to gain some political power--or at least it doesn't surprise me--but creating trust lists that include QS and cryptohunter is just idiotic.  That's not the right way to go about getting a member onto DT in my opinion.

Stop feeding the troll and it will wither and die.  It's the ONLY way to stop this insanity.

I did see that on the other thread--not sure if it's off-topic here, but is QS on DT now or what?  And I thought Tomatocage was off DT.

I don't think either one of these members is untrustworthy, but to each his own (nor marlboroza).  You claimed that xtraelv was aiming to be on DT, and while that could certainly be true I don't suspect it was for nefarious purposes.  He has been very good at busting scams along with cryptodevil.  Just my 2 cents; it's your trust list.

This thread is complete bullshit.  Whenever I visit coinflation.com to check the silver price (which isn't that often), I see links to articles that say almost the exact same thing as the title of this thread--and it's the same thing year after year since before 2011.  And where is gold right now?  Yeah, still sub-$1300.  It's been either going down or trading sideways for years now, but that doesn't stop the gold permabulls from spouting the same bullish nonsense. 

Take a look at the price chart of gold, 2011-now and compare that to something like the S&P 500 or even bitcoin, and then you tell me if you would rather own a commodity like gold.  It's nice if you want some quality jewelry or a nice coin, but it's a horrible investment.

By whom?  All the evidence has been presented and feedback has been given, so it's up to everyone to read it and make up their own minds about it.  It looks like the consensus among the members who've posted here is that they are alts, and I suspect that's the case.  Do I know that for a fact?  Not really.  Everything mdayonliner presented as far as phone screenshots and the like could be doctored--or they could be genuine.

I've seen enough shenanigans and lying on this forum to be jaded enough to disbelieve anyone on a matter like this, even if they're trusted.  And when you factor in the fact that S_Therapist is a documented account buyer with other alt accounts, it would not surprise me in the least if mdayonliner was an alt.  I don't like the fact that mdayonliner's stated relationship with S_Therapist changed as time went along.  Seems like he was trying to hide something there. 

In any case, I'm pretty sure the reputations of both accounts are irreparably shot and I agree with others who've said that presenting all of this evidence is pointless.  None of it proves beyond a doubt that the two accounts represent two separate individual human beings.

Why?  It's true a lot of your feedbacks don't have reference links, but you have a pretty solid trust page and a lot of people vouching for you.  Just be careful in the future when you're sending feedback to include a reference link and to not hand them out to just anyone.  I haven't seen your trust list, but this is the whole point of the new trust system, i.e., to have more DT members and more 'diversity' in the list.

I was looking at the entirety of his trust page, including feedback he got.  And yes, I agree about the risked amounts.  Truthfulness aside, that amount doesn't affect the 'strength' of the feedback, right?  I tend to not even look at the amount unless I've done a deal for a specific amount and am leaving a feedback.  Micio clearly doesn't seem to be a scammer and in fact looks to be pretty trusted.  I'm not sure the lack of reference links ought to impact that, but that's just my opinion.  I don't know anything about him or what the Italian section is like.  The members there seem to trust him a lot, and that counts for something.  

Edit:
OK, so it does make the rating stronger.  I thought I might have seen that somewhere, but never saw it in action I guess.

Haven't finished reading this thread yet, but watch out lest you become the next target of cryptohunter for that.  Just voice a modicum of support for Dash and you'll end up on the sharp end of his trolling stick.

Grin?  Never heard of it.  Not interested in it, even if Theymos is throwing his support at it--which makes me scratch my head a little.  But I'm obviously not nearly as knowledgeable as 95% of bitcointalkers as far as what constitutes a good altcoin anyway.

No, those are earned merits.

Ah, that I don't know.  I know the Legendaries listed above earned 1000 and that's all I was interested in--not that ranking up to Legendary by earning merits is less impressive, because it isn't.  It's more of a feat that few members will be able to pull off in their lifetimes.

Yeah, actually I wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of how many merits all the Legendaries have earned.  I suspect there's an easy way of seeing that data, but I don't know how to do it myself.  Does Vod's BPIP site have a way to collate that info?  

I know of only a handful of Legendary members who've actually earned more than 1000 merits, and I know there are some lower-ranked members who've done it but don't yet have enough activity to rank up, but there still aren't all that many of them as far as I know.

Edit:That's it?  Wow, I thought there were more than that--but on the other hand, the only members who came immediately to mind were hilariousandco and LoyceV.  Forgot about suchmoon for a minute, and wasn't aware of Last of the V8s' inclusion on that list. 

Now that you told me how you got that data, I'm pretty sure I could have found it myself.  I haven't visited the BPIP site in a while and forget that it's a relatively simple thing to compile numbers like that.  Thanks, tho.

Your question may as well be a rhetorical one.  All of these things are what should make someone a DT1/DT2 member in the first place, not some rules new DT members should become aware of after the fact.  I respect OP's effort, but any DT member should know not to do all of these things, and if they do end up sending merits to alts or abusing bounties they're not going to be on DT for long.

And just like that huge thread in Meta explaining about why accounts get banned and what to do, I highly doubt anyone is going to use this as a reference.  Call me jaded, but I think it's a wasted effort here.

The OP of that thread is cross-posting that post across forums, and I'm not sure if that's allowed or not.  He might be the original author of this post in reddit (they have the same usernames on both here and reddit), but shouldn't there be some sort of indication that the info was posted somewhere else?

Uh, yeah.  Don't click on those reference links at work.  Just a warning.

He's not on DT2, right?  I've seen his name before, but I can't recall where.  Obviously he's gone into full troll mode, which seems to be happening a lot lately.  Those feedbacks he left are obviously ridiculous retaliatory attacks and should be discarded by anyone with a brain.

Ugh.  Some of the members he left trust for probably deserve it, but this is exactly what a new DT2 member shouldn't be doing.  When I got added to DT2 last year, I got quite a few PMs from DT members suggesting some changes to my feedbacks and recommendations that I hand out positives very conservatively.  New DT members should not be going nuts, handing out green trust like that--especially without reference links, but even with the links I think they ought to just slow down and not go on a positive (or negative) trust rampage.

I'm not going to act as far as exclusions or counter-negs.  Hopefully Alex_Sr (and anyone else who's doing the same thing) will see this thread and maybe think twice about his feedbacks. 

Likely because he knew he needed one merit to rank up and thus had to make a very good post to get it.  Not being very proficient in English, he decided to take the path that many new members take and just copy/paste something useful from the internet and claim it as their own. 

That's my guess, but it doesn't really matter.  He's not the first to do it and certainly won't be the last, and this is also a good example of why giving merits to Newbies is so difficult.  You have to check to see if what looks to be a decent post is plagiarized, because only rarely does this forum attract new members proficient in English. 

Most new members come here to make money and can only do so in the main sections where they're forced to write in a language that frankly they're not typically very good at.  It wouldn't be a problem if bounties and sig campaigns paid for posts in the local boards, but alas that's usually not the case.