Around the time I posted this, there was talk about BIP100 giving too much control to the miners. The argument of some was that while miners benefit and are rewarded from bitcoin by nature, their goal is very short term or instant profit, they don't care about bitcoin succeeding, so although the power they have over bitcoin right now is much, users accept that, but trusting them with the block size limit choice seemed to be too much for some. I myself don't think that trusting miners with the block size limit vote would be an issue and hence why I asked this question.

I'll add my personal experience here.

I bought a single item from this seller and it was delivered as promised. 10 cents aren't that big of a deal to me anyway but the item was delivered so no problems in that regard. That still doesn't mean you should trust this seller with big amounts though.

While I'm no supported of TF I think that him pushing the limits of this whole doxing thing is somewhat important. People might call him a troll and all but I'm not aware of many people that would risk trying to push the limits of rules.

We had salty saying that people wouldn't be banned or have their posts deleted if they posted theymos' dox along becaus of him having scammed them, as it would be treated just like any other dox, yet TF is banned after he posts info about said dox and the post is deleted. That was after salty saying what he said.

Why I consider this important? Well, there needs to be something done about doxing in here. Theymos posted in the other thread which I consider a step to the right direction but TF is right when he calls out the double standard of deleting staffer doxes almost instantly while innocent people can still be targeted with just a claim.

Gleb made it into buttcoin! lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3lst6j/bitpay_hack_exposed_as_potentially_an_inside_job/

Good job on the digging man, you're making it to headlines again.

This reminds me of changetip finding out after a poll that BTC made people less likely to use them, so they featured USD tipping despite the hardship regulations could bring. This isn't directly beneficial for bitcoin but even for the few people that are going to find out about it's existence though an service they use I'm confident that it's worth it. If people trust circle for non bitcoin uses, finding out about bitcoin through a trusted app is going to be a good introduction.

Of course, ponzis and their advertisements aren't against the rules here or anything but leaving trust ratings freely is also not against the rules. If the single person in default trust that left you negative thinks advertising ponsis while not disclosing what they actually are is immoral they he's free to accuse you. While you probably didn't scam someone directly, the most responsible thing to do while advertising something would be to warn people that are potentially interested on what they could be getting into.

Hmm yeah, I might have exaggerated a bit. Thanks for linking straight to the source of the statistic, that was a better read actually.

The later probably played a bigger role in all this. Every time a reputable member turns out to be a fraud with solid evidence presented against them the whole thing blows up. With Quickseller it wasn't much different, except that he was also participating into making all this a big deal by defending himself non stop and refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, coming out as an asshat and being hated even more in the end.

Been told this multiple times now. I'll move to meta and mods can decide if it's off topic or not.

Funny thing is that it's not just refugees. They're is a continuous influx of west Africa immigrants. Clearly they're taking advantage of the situation. They have sums from 2k USD to 5k USD at their disposal to be smuggled from their place to Europe before they sink their boats to hide evidence and get a chance to apply for asylum along with actual refugees.


EU statisticians claim only 1 in 5 migrants are from Syria

http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/19/eu-statisticians-claim-only-1-in-5-migrants-are-from-syria-5398412/

Of course most of those are spam transactions, there's no good reason actual use would rise that much in a day. Even the current everyday use of in-blockchain transactions could be reduced by making bitcoin gambling games using blockchain transactions from bets have off-chain technologies as dice websites do. Luckybit and Satoshidice for example, started with a simple idea but are now owning the addreses with the most transactions ever.

This is one of the main reasons I believe that pushing for a block size limit increase with the hopes that bitcoin adoption will grow and will have to be contained in the blockchain is faulty rasoning. That in addition to the fact that most adoption bitcoin has had up until now was thanks to some kind third party technologies that made it more accessible, usefull, or somehow appealing to use. To say that a lightning network or any third party technology to support innovation and more transactions per second on top of the existing technology would be bad while praising existing adoption and wanting more is highly hypocritical. We haven't even had a good chance to judge those possible future solutions and FUDsters are already calling the death of bitcoin if it's block size limit doesn't increase. Funnily enough, when not under a stress test, even the 1Mb limit seems big.

I saw a post on reddit with a German article suggesting that the Interior minister their is now favoring a cap on refugees and suggested outside camps on Africa. Someone posted a translation, but I havent seen this reported in English yet.

Edit: I should mention that Capms being built in africa was covered by the Guardian.

European governments are aiming to deny the right of asylum to innumerable refugees by funding and building camps for them in Africa and elsewhere outside the European Union.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/refugee-crisis-eu-governments-set-to-back-new-internment-camps

Good job with the warning. I wonder how many of those script sellers/developers are actually leaching their content from nulled.io or similar forums.

Well, I think that occasional negative ratings can be ok. If for example someone is trying to deceive people into thinking that a HYIP/PONZI/PYRAMID is an actual investment opportunity without disclosing risks then in my opinion he's doing something very controversial. Such schemes benefit early 'investors' which the advertiser is likely one of them, as well as providing heavy referral rewards. It's very likely that any successful promotion will lead to people losing money.

Oh man, this keeps getting more and more complicated.

With TF risking to push this argument one step further, I'm starting to question the credibility of what SaltySpitoon said. I'm aware that he's an individual holding his own opinions but it's unclear if he was speaking representing the forum's administration board here.

Could we perhaps get a word from theymos on the matter?

Update from the group she was involved with.

https://archive.is/7ob0O

According to them it's largely an issue between her and a partner of the past? And they also claim that she lied about not knowing about bitcoin? This keeps getting more complicated.

Πηγή:
http://newsroom.uber.com/greece/el/2015/09/voteathens_gr/

ahem

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=failing+to+report+crime&tbm=nws

Ok, that sounds more fair. But it brings up some other points of mine. Anyone can come here and claim that theymos has scammed them right? Would the claim be enough? Dismissing the claim would count as censorship according to the 'deleting doxing is bad for freedom of speech' mentality.

I've been saying that allowing doxing can be abused because according to the current views (you seem to have) on this, (and correct me if I'm wrong), someone could use bitcointalk to post a scam accusation claiming that he was scammed by someone and include his dox (Motivation to do this could be anything from hate, trolling to actual scamming).

In that case, will you question the validity of his claims? If there's no factual proof of the scamming taking place should the dox remain up? Would you accept counter claims by the accused?

And finally, since I don't see this forum having any handling of takedown notices, is there any way someone could get his dox removed from bitcointalk aside from legal action?

This gets absurdly complicated. I can't speak of actual laws, which are obviously largely ignored in this thread. But the sheer complexity that this reaches is the reason I think doxing should be entirely banned, (ideological and moral reasoning aside).