I believe Angellist has has a few cryptocurrency companies posting there from time to time. Other than that, checking the service announcement section on the forum would give you a good idea who would be interested in paying their employees in Bitcoin.

I wouldn't limit yourself to Bitcoin only paying companies though. You can always just receive the fiat, and purchase the Bitcoin amount that you want for that payment period. Yeah, you'll be dealing with fees, but at least you'll be able to decide how much you want to invest, instead of being fully invested.

DustMedia007 has been banned, not sure if its for the same reasons that you reported them for, or if it was in direct response of one of your reports, but they're banned currently. As for Scotland, that does ring a bell, and I believe in the past I've acted upon certain reports against that user. Obviously, being a jr member I don't see those reports any more, which might be another reason why certain usernames don't face consequences after repeat offending constantly, since patrollres may have been acted upon their reports, before they became a jr member. Obviously, that's looking at the larger picture.

The 12 reports in 14 days, could potentially just be different moderators or the moderators monitoring the situation currently, and don't want to act too hastily.

Yeah, like any other industry. The only difference is there's less jobs available simply because of the currency being new, and therefore the companies are limited, and even when we do have established companies they aren't recruiting a massive amount of people, when compared to Google etc.

You can pretty much make money any way you want in this world. Obviously, complying to local laws goes without saying, but if you have the skills required for cryptocurrencies you likely have the skills to earn outside of cryptocurrency, which isn't exactly always the case visa versa.

I personally wouldn't class mining as a full time job, but then again we do have people that are running multi thousands pounds worth of hardware, earning above the average yearly salary of their company. I guess it could be considered a job. However, as a average individual, probably not.

I can see us benefiting Trent with his current form, and the team form. Like I said before, having Trent push up as much as he does, requires the rest of our defense to be in good form, which they aren't. Therefore, Trent's positioning is highlighted even more. I do think he needs to start running back, and showing a little more urgency though.

I think Diaz is the greatest loss. 6-8 weeks I think I remember reading. That's not awful, but not ideal. Matip is a big loss, but Konate has just come back, and apart from a few games I've found him pretty decent. Quite excited for his future considering his age.

If you reuse your email on every site, it'll be leaked. It's a guarantee. I suspect the majority of users here have had their email leaked here on the forum. Whether it was from the forum getting compromised or if it was another site getting compromised. You can't realistically protect from this, and therefore you'll probably always be subject to spam email. Obviously, using unique email addresses for every site mitigates that, and changing the email once it has been leaked. However, the reality is most users don't do that.

Everyone on this forum prior to the compromise (which I believe was 2015?) had their email leaked, and therefore could be subject to these types of attacks. Since, the database seems to have been sold quite a lot in the years following.

Unfortunately, it probably depends on who handles them at the time. If you get the same moderator handling it every single time, they'll probably ping the username in their mind, and be able to act accordingly in the future. However, if you've got multiple moderators handling the reports then things can become a little inconsistent as as moderators we can only act upon what we see, and can verify. Therefore, if one global handled 25%, another global with 25%, and a dedicated moderator 50%, a global isn't going to think too much of it. I know this seems to be in the Gambling section, and therefore the dedicated moderators are global, but there's three of them, so it could equally apply. The above is just an example. In other sections where there's multiple non global dedicated moderators things can start to get really murky depending on who handles it at the time.

Plus, there's the flip side where moderators handle a lot of reports, and pretty much identical reports when it comes to bumping. So, its very easily to forget when you could potentially be handling hundreds of reports every day. Obviously, with the recent decline in reports it's probably not as drastic figures, but you get my point.

I've been utilizing a user script by TryNinja recently. I had a half baked version that I made prior to it, but their version is fully fledged, and pretty much covers all basis'. So, I've started to log certain problem users, for further review down the line if there's other reports made against them. Again, this doesn't really eliminate the issue of multiple moderators handling the reports, but it does eliminate the second issue of forgetting.

Technically, moderators can somewhat verify if another moderator has taken action on the user previously, but I'm not sure if other moderators do this routinely. Especially when it's longer than the data available shows.

That would be my guess of what's happening here. It's not the fact that this wouldn't be taken further, and by taken further I don't mean bans, but could potentially be warnings via personal messages before bans, it's the fact that there's missing parts in the process. It'd be nice if we had a reporting system that highlighted how many times a user had been reported in the past x amount of days, and potentially link to a archived version, but that means storing deleted posts on the live database longer than we probably do right now.

Honestly, I'm very hesitant to encourage people to invest in Bitcoin. I literally got asked the question today by someone in the family. I basically said I wouldn't advise so. Since, I believe it requires a lot of knowledge to actually learn about Bitcoin, and by the time you've learned about Bitcoin, you don't need to be asking that question. So, my default is I wouldn't advise it. Ideally, I should be telling them only with the right knowledge, but the questions I get asked are usually off the cuff, and not a great deal of thought put into it.

I'd love to educate others on Bitcoin, but I don't think my base level of knowledge is good enough to do that. Bitcoin is complex, there's no way around it. Fiat is also complex, but at a consumer level it's relatively straight forward because we're introduced to it from a relatively young age, and there's a massive effort by companies to streamline it. Currently, Bitcoin doesn't have any of those things, and therefore it's a new concept to everyone, whereas fiat is basically second nature. So, yeah I definitely don't grasp a few concepts, and I wouldn't be comfortable teaching anyone about Bitcoin, when I don't fully understand it myself.

Don't get me wrong, I have a fairly good grasp. I've been here nearly 10 years now, should I should do. However, there's a few concepts which I might understand from a consumer point of view, but teaching that in a comprehensible way to someone else, I don't think I'd be very good at. Teaching is a skill, we aren't all teachers when it comes to the technical side of things.

As much as I want to advocate its use, I also don't want to be the person to advise someone wrongly. 

Charles isn't just good on the ground, he's one of the best on the ground. You see it after he gets tagged, and to be honest at times I've questioned whether him getting tagged is just a way of enticing them in on the ground, but you see it time, and time again. He'll get rocked, take guard, and sub them out within a minute or so. He's exceptionally talented on the ground, and while for some reason some people think Makachev is better on the ground, we haven't seen any signs of that in the UFC.

Striking it might be even, but I'm pretty confident in Charles being the better fighter on the ground.

From a Liverpool fan, it's hard not to get excited for us showing a glimpse of brilliance in the midweek, but ultimately I believe we'll get beat. City have been brilliant, while we've been at our absolutely worst under Klopp. We're missing a few key players, and it remains to be seen whether we'll actually benefit from Trent having to sit out a few weeks.

City likely beat us. I just hope it isn't by a landslide. Who knows though, Salah got on the score sheet in exciting fashion in midweek, and he could be finding his feet. We also looked as a team in very good shape in the second half against Rangers. Some could say that's because it's only Rangers, but the shape, passes, and fluidity was there despite who we may have been playing.

I'm slightly optimistic to get a result, but I'm not overly confident if that makes any sense. As for the United game, I'm fancying Newcastle. I think United haven't fixed their problems, but merely glossed over them for the time being. Newcastle have that tenaciously that United have lacked the last few years. Although, without trying to sit on the fence too much, could very well see United blow past them if they're in top form.

I'd say with a realistic logical mind frame based on recent form: City win, United draw.

And, likely will be robbed of it again. Honestly, despite the Ballon d'or being hyped up to be this all great accolade, it's mostly just a popularity contest. That's been proven over a number of years now where Ronaldo or Messi weren't the best players that year.

Out of those that you've linked to in the favourites position I'd expect Kevin to get it out of all of those, since he's the more popular player. I don't know why that is. Not even sure why Kane is listed in the underdog chances, and in the same bracket as Salah, Mane, and Son. That just seems ridiculous to me. Benzema, Kevin, Mbappe, and Courtois all sound alright. Haaland might be popular, and lighting up the Premier League at the moment, but the time that this award actually counts he was relatively new to it, and I don't think he was the stand out player for the year either. Although, he would've a good chance based on his current form for this season's Ballon d'Or.

Neutral tag, with a neutral tone being clear that it's not exactly set in stone, and instead highlighting suspicions, sure. I personally won't be leaving a feedback score, and would just keep this in mind in the future.

The thing with neutral tags is a lot of the times the actual content within that neutral tag (i.e the text) is rather negative, and potentially could sway the user one way another without actually investigating themselves. So, neutral tags should probably stay as neutral as possible in tone when it comes to explaining why you've left it.

I'm certainly not the standard setter when it comes to feedback though. I relatively inactive in that scene.

Absolutely, we have different standards each day, and when it comes to something like the merit system it doesn't matter all that much, in fact it can actually be a good thing. There's no set standards, and therefore you want a little more variation. Don't think there's also natural variation in what gets posted every month. Some months we'll have good post, after good post, but other months it'll be what I'd call a dry month. So, naturally you'll be wanting to expend your merit source allocation since you're encouraged to do so, therefore those dry months will likely see lower quality posts being rewards when compared to the higher quality months.

Also, hell yeah some times I look at my posts, and think I've made a right mess of things there. Grammar, general presentation or just being concise enough (which is something I've always struggled with) so I definitely don't expect anyone to be absolutely perfect with their posts. At the end of the day, it's a discussion forum, not a language efficiency test.

Yeah, but that's hard to verify, this has been a common concern within the marketplace sections, and whether or not users were storing that data. Personally, I delete any sensitive data in PMs once its not needed, but no one can verify that except theymos. However, when it comes to a site you control, no one at all will be able to verify that you remove or don't store the data. Since you need some data to be physically able to ship items, you have to store it for a small period of time at the very least.

If you could come up with a system which was able to prove removal, and no data been extracted then I'd be very impressed, but as far as I'm aware it simply cannot be done.

Usually, when you start fighting the top 10 or 5 that's when you start picking up losses on your record. That's been the story for plenty of fighters, and I don't think either of these two are an exception of that. It's almost expected in UFC. What Khabib done was a outlier, and was rather exceptional. That's why he's considered the goat by many. However, if he did continue fighting I'd imagine he would've lost sooner rather than later.

What Khabib had going for him over Charles is he was a much safer fighter. Whereas, Charles likes to stand, and be punched as we've probably seen far too often. Makhachev doesn't take massive risks, but he isn't as safe as Khabib's style either. I don't expect Makhachev to become this all dominant force in the UFC that the production seem to be pushing.

I've picked the next few weeks in advance, some that were picked before the season began. I didn't change them since I've been awful this season anyhow, and honestly I really haven't picked up on the forms of teams yet. It just seems like a very mixed season, unless I'm just getting that impression because of Liverpool struggling, I don't know.

I can't remember what I picked for the Brighton game, but I'd fancy a draw there. I feel like Brighton could dominate the game, but they struggle to score at times. Whereas Brentford are usually pretty decent at counter attacking sides that have a large amount of the ball. Could be an exciting game, and it could mean both teams end up cancelling each other out.

If I were to slightly lean towards one team over the other it would probably be Brighton.

FatFork has got it right. While, these are suspicious circumstances there's just not quite enough evidence to link the two. However, anything that these two users do in the future, could potentially link them, and confirm the suspicious here.

Plus, if they start offering services or try to join a signature campaign a good signature manager will do their research, and likely find this thread, and take it into consideration. So, I don't consider posting the thread detrimental to catching them if they're alts or bought merit. However, I don't think there's enough compelling evidence to link the two accounts either.

I'd only be interested in collectible items which could be displayed privately at home rather than something I'd wear or anything like that, simply due to the privacy concerns already mentioned.

Obviously, you could frame a T-shirt if you wanted too, but it's not something I'd particularly be interested in doing. Judging by the interest of the rewards we had for an April fools, condoms were a popular choice .

Not just the amount they send either, it's their process of thought when rewarding merit. Some users only merit the upmost of quality, while others actually look to reward newbies looking to contribute. There's usually a bit of a difference between a user that's been here years, and those that have recently signed up. So, sometimes those new users don't get rewarded nearly as much, since the community has come to expect a certain standard when posting.

Which in the most part is brilliant, but it does mean it's a lot more difficult to rank up. I personally like rewarding users that ask some decent questions, and give the impression they're actually trying to learn rather than just fishing for merit.

While this is probably true, the biggest contribution to less reports, and less spam is due to the amount of posts we're getting these days. If you look back when Bitcoin was at its highest, you'll find there was a lot more posts, and therefore a lot more spam along with it.

There's definitely a correlation between the two so it's not surprising there's been a drop off in reporters. There are likely other reasons, including old reporters getting tired of not seeing an improvement, even though their reports are greatly missed by the community.

Though, the bumping changes in the altcoin section, helped a lot, and so did the merit system.

Most fiat money isn't backed by anything meaningful these days. We've simply out printed the previous metals etc, that fiat relied upon for backing it up. There's only a few notable currencies in the current climate which are backed by something physically. All the other's sort of give the impression they're backed by gold etc, but in reality they aren't.

This will also change relatively soon as we're transitioning into a digital world, and therefore a digital money system, which likely won't be backed by physical precious metals. As for the counter argument, Bitcoin has continued to go up, and that should be proof enough. However, if it isn't Bitcoin is simply backed up by a logical algorithm which assures it remains somewhat deflationary which is already a massive improvement on any other fiat system out there.