I asked that in post #3

Depositing a large amount of Bitcoin into the address could make ownership plausible, but I don't think Cryptios would accept it.

Let's notify and ask the experts: alanst, 3dOOm, Rizzrack

Any chance you can share the full DT1-voting blacklist (for my DT1-election: Rank up pipeline)?

So far, I have these confirmed userIDs on "my" DT1-voting blacklist:
(the last 4 added just now)

---

---

Latest data:

Since 3 out of 4 haven't been online in 6 days, they must have changed their Trust list before icopress posted about it here.

If you didn't know how the Trust system works, you shouldn't have been voted into DT1 in the first place. Since you've only left feedback twice, I wonder what the reasons were for so many users to include you on their Trust list.

I don't think theymos' post nor your DT1-inclusion has anything to do with theymos trusting you.

Allow me to disagree: In the past week, you've added 8 more users who never left any feedback to your Trust list. That's not how you should build a proper Trust list. Luckily, your DT1 strength is (-5) already, so it doesn't matter to the Trust system. I'd much rather see Trust lists based on the right criteria. If you haven't read it yet: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.
Can you explain why you've included 8 users who haven't left any feedback? "Being friends" shouldn't be the answer.

I'm also curious why you went from including to excluding icopress from your Trust list. His judgement was spot-on!

For the record: I don't And that's what you should always assume when you don't want data to be compromised.
Even though I won't do it intentional, anything on a server can be compromised. It can be because I made a mistake, law enforcement or even a curious employee at the webhost.
TL;DR: don't ever assume anyone is safe

I don't mind

The above statement doesn't seem correct: Even without those 4 accounts voting for him, The0ldl_lser has enough inclusions to join the DT1-election.

Your evidence is in Russian, so I can't easily review it. But even if those 4 accounts aren't the reason The0ldl_lser reach DT1, if they're alts they shouldn't give any user more than one vote.

Judging by the name I expect it to be about crypto mining Down Under, but the site isn't loading to I can't check.

Any chance your office looks like this?

I've had this message in the past, before I added a "delay" between scraping pages. The first 10-20 pages are usually without problems, but after that the server starts rate limiting your IP to reduce server load. This has nothing to do with other forum users, unless they share the same IP address.

Are those people using the same Wifi?

It makes sense that decent users stay away from this campaign, so that only leaves shitposters who have nothing to lose. I don't think they will get banned just because of the signature they wear though. I also don't expect them to get a signature ban.

To get them a real ban, I think you'll have to build a case against each individual user. Back when Yobit was spamming, suchmoon made an overview of the number of posts per user. Such an overview could help here too, but it's a lot of work and I've seen users get away with many deleted posts.

No. I'd say it's more likely the second user saw the earlier post and decided to dig further.

Even if that would be true, it's no valid reason for a ban. To state the obvious: I have no reason to believe Timelord2067 ever scammed anyone.

That's why last year the "troll of the year" category was removed. In this case giving them any attention is already more than they deserve.

You're joking now, but be careful. Technically, your Note says you can only ignore recently awakened or inactive posters:
Spambies and scammers can't be excluded at your discretion

Ask him to sign a message And send my regards
If he decides to vote, I suggest to double the weight of his vote. We owe him that.

That's the Apache default.

I don't care enough to do that

There are more reasons for using Tor than just loyce.club

Again: I don't care enough for that

I (and when I say "I" I really mean just the VPS) store anything Apache logs by default. Initially I didn't expect to ever look at it, but it comes in handy when there's a very agressive scraping bot once in a while.

Welcome

Sorry, I can't (easily) do this. I don't keep track of the board on which a post is made, and considering barely anyone uses this, I don't think it's worth adding.
I know TryNinja has a database with all the data required, but as far as I know he's short on time too.

Negative tags were never meant to stop people from expressing their opinion, or even from publishing their scams. Negative tags are meant to be a warning. I'd be in favour of showing Trust ratings on all boards, but that has been suggested a few times before and it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

As much as I'd like to get rid of all scams, I do get the "scams are not moderated" stance. Bitcointalk's mission is "to be as free as possible", and as long as they're not causing massive spam (like Yobit did in the past), I don't expect their signature to be banned.
Both online as well as offline I see the same thing happening a lot: people ask for more regulation. They volunteer to sacrifice their freedom bit by bit. Now it's about something I consider a good thing, but next time it's something bad, such as bans for rude comments. I've seen snowflakes make this request a while ago already. The longer I am using Bitcointalk, the more I appreciate theymos' hands off approach.

If a gullible victim doesn't see the ads here, they'll see the same ads at Blockchair or Coinmarketplace. "Be your own bank" means you should "use your own brain".

This guy explained it well:

Wait, let me rub salt in the wound break some spaghetti for the sensitive Italians

As much as I like Bitcoin, I wouldn't put all my eggs in this one basket when it comes to pensions. I do agree Bitcoin has a much higher upward potential than traditional stocks, but it's also more volatile and much more uncertain.
However, even if it's just 10% of the pension, it's very well possible this 10% is worth more than the other 90% by the time you retire. But it's not certain.

Don't underestimate this! "Being your own bank" in a secure way for several decades is not that easy.

Also keep in mind the cost of collecting small Bitcoin inputs later on: if you retire and have hundreds of inputs each worth 0.0005BTC, it could be very expensive (in terms of transaction fees) to spend. If you're considering paying small amounts per month, it's better to make it annual larger amounts.

Thanks again for your flawless timing! I'll do as GazetaBitcoin said and blame the kids for being late: they're not even in bed yet

Dee Dee Mister Squared.

Why do you call it "giving" to employees? Usually they earn their salary, so it's not a gift. If it really is a gift, it wouldn't matter if they're your employees or not. If it's their salary, I don't think you should be the one deciding to pay them in Bitcoin, unless there's a specific reason for it (such as running a Bitcointalk signature campaign).

The best I can think of is making it a bonus: you can for instance hand them a loaded paper wallet with company logo, but it's kinda important they understand what they're holding before they start messing with it. And it's important you know what you're doing too, so you don't just print this with the company's network printer.

Where I live a small amount (for Christmas) would be tax free, and a larger amount would be considered taxable income (just like fiat or for instance shares).

I think it's partially caused by notification bots: posting a list of usernames means some of them get notified. If they get notified, they see the post. If they see the post, it increases the chance of getting Merited.
As a Merit source, 1 sMerit more or less is a drop in a bucket.

As I wrote at the previous contest:

That's not very Switzerland to do, but it's not against the rules either.

Exactly this An Award like this can't be completely fair, especially when prizes are $650 per winner.
But campaigning for yourself is allowed:

Bump