Does this officially unofficially make suchmoon an imposter?

MehMeh painted a new Bitcoin-logo artwork recently, but it's not finished yet. It could actually serve as a logo. A logo created by someone much younger than Bitcoin

Well, that's a first:
I checked his email, and didn't see any big red flags. Let's see if I can keep this under 1% long-term.

Vanitygen gives slightly different values for some:

Someone beat me to it:

Did you mean you have unmined unconfirmed transactions?

If you imported only an address into blockchain.com's wallet, it can't export the private key.
If you have the private key, you can import it into Electrum directly when you create a new wallet and choose "Import Bitcoin addresses or private keys".

I'll continue my review here. The delay is caused by me (Support Chat answered after 2 hours, I took 3 days to continue my testing):
Me:
Support Chat:
This verified the signed message. It might be good to add verification instructions to the website.
But 8gwifi.org's verification didn't work offline, so chances are the 8gwifi.org server now knows the details of my transaction.
After I verified the LoG, I made a deposit. I used a short delay to speed things up.

When I checked my wallet after a while, it had 11 confirmations already. But the site (on Tor browser) still shows an animation and this:
If this can be fixed to auto-update, that would be great. I thought fees must have gone up, so I was still waiting until I checked my own wallet.
Reloading the page fixed it.

After reaching Step 5 ("Done!"), I can't check back the earlier steps anymore for the exact details, but at Step 4 it showed that I would receive a slightly larger amount than what I actually received. The difference wasn't much (maybe 1000 sats), but this should have been the exact amount. The total fee is now about 50% higher than what it showed earlier.

Suggestion: can you make the random fee provably fair? For instance, you can use the order ID and block hash of the incoming transaction as input to generate the random number. This might prevent complaints if someone is charged 3% on a large deposit. This can be prevented if both you and the user can't know fee before the deposit gets confirmed.

Coinjoin?
Now the thing it's all about: a coinjoin transaction! The transaction I received had 1 input and 2 outputs.
Let me quote from /en/why-unijoin]the website:
This didn't happen. I expected my own deposit to join a pool of other transactions, and be included in the transaction that funds my withdrawal address.

I followed my withdrawal up the blockchain, until I got to March 29, 2022. This is the first transaction that looks like a coinjoin. But if I follow it a bit further, I get to many parent transactions that look the same, which makes me think the same funds are being used for several coinjoins in a row. This one is from February 10, 2022 for instance.

The entire concept of "UniCode" doesn't make sense when doing a real coinjoin:
With coinjoin, I expect to receive part of my own coins back. What you're doing now is what most "classic" mixers do.

To conclude: it's not non-custodial, it's not trustless, and it's not coinjoin. I've said this before in a discussion with another mixer: you're in the business of trust. People need to be able to absolutely trust you're going to do what you say you're going to do. Now it looks like you're using buzzwords to inspire confidence. All in all this does the opposite: if you lie about things that I know for sure are incorrect, how can I trust you on other promises, such as not keeping any logs?

---

---

One more thing: Support Chat rejects many normal characters, I can't say "can't" and I can't use (brackets). If that can be fixed, that would be great! It's annoying having to remove common characters for every message I post.

This completes my review. Sorry for doing it in several parts, but it was necessary to verify things before I could continue with confidence.

See:
I never took the hour needed to fix it

I have incomplete old data (scroll down to "trust").

How do you handle added or removed DT-members?

How about highlighting the DT-members without any sent feedback? Those users should probably not have been added to DT in the first place.

You asked for suggestions, so here it goes: use less words and more colors and links. So add a profile link to the username, don't show the userID. Don't mention "Positive" but make it Bold. Make negative feedback bold red, just like the forum does. Add the Reference link and feedback date.
Now it looks like a long list that I'm not going to read. To make this useful, it should quickly provide relevant information.

If you want to go wild, you could make this for DT3-members too. I've never really looked into those, but it might be useful to find members who deserve to be on DT2.

Why make it weekly, and not daily? Much of the feedback drama doesn't even last a week. Since it's only about 1000 pages to download, doing it daily shouldn't be a problem (I scrape much more than that).

I'm missing the most interesting thing: deleted feedback! Those are much harder to find without remembering every feedback ever received. If you can automate that, it can become a valuable resource for keeping track of who did what when.

Yeah, be careful there. It starts with small external storage because of the limited post size, and then quickly gets out of hand into storing 17 million files

@Redmalak: this is often used to scam people. It works like this: someone else creates a wallet at blockchain.com for you, or someone tells you to import an address before you received funds from them.
If that's the case, you most likely got scammed. If you created the address yourself (for instance on a paper wallet), you can use the private key to access the funds. Be careful when handling private keys, don't just do things before you understand what you're doing (and don't share private keys with anyone).

Thanks again for your flawless timing

It's probably not that much. My inefficient collection of all kinds of data on loyce.club fills 250 GB now, with 17 million files. 211 GB of that is online. My posts archive fills 142 GB, and I know it would take up less disk space if I would use a database instead of millions of files.

With 1250BTC, I don't think a couple hundred GB server storage matters much. The Bitcoin blockchain is bigger.

That's not a good summary of what I said. I'll quite a small part for context:

Great! I value privacy, especially when it comes to crypto. But if you say Debit cards are issued by Cripto Debit's bank partners, I find it hard to believe banks do business with anonymous entities. And if you're not completely anonymous: why hide yourself from potential customers?

I think it's very unlikely Bitcointalk Admin is going to test your card. Some users may want to do it. I'd offer to test it by myself, but I have no use for a creditcard.

Your website is less than a month old. Why rush users to spend funds?

---

---

I see potential, but I also see several red flags.

You can do it with much lower amounts, say 0.0001 BTC each, as a proof of concept but without the risk.

This has been going on for years, in many topics. They spam something that may be slightly on-topic, often with an irrelevant story. My guess it they're a combination of sweatshop workers and bots. And some topics are just filled with spam.

Lol Let's ask @TryNinja if the bot checks the most recent post title when a post gets Merited.

I suddenly feel the urge to change the title on all posts in one of my topics to do this:

Your math is wrong. I use vanitygen instead of VanitySearch, and as far as I know it shows correct difficulties.
I'll explain with a very short test so the difference in difficulty is easy to see:
This makes sense, right? Searching case insensitive doubles the chance of finding a match, so the difficulty drops 50%.
Adding a "o" (which doesn't change when you search case insensitive) means the change in difficulty is still 50%:
If, however, you would search for "tt", the difficulty drops by 75% because you're now searching for 4 different prefixes:

PawGo's list shows the exceptions: prefixes starting with certain characters are less likely to occur.