Visto el juego que da el contenido del OP en este hilo, y las pasiones que levanta, podría ser interesante abrir una encuesta similar en Bitcoin Discussion. Lo interesante no obstante sería ver en la encuesta lo que se ve reflejado en los comentarios aquí: una evolución del perfil a lo largo del tiempo (I was a xxx -> I’m now more of a xxxx). Just an idea …

Google just recently took down 49 Crypto-Stealing Chrome Extensions from Google's Store. Many of these were publicized through Google Ads (nice tightly-coupled ecosystem here), which kind of lead to the thread been pulled, whereas that is not often going to be the case, and they will be placed and replace on the store without too much effort.

The article sounds like a "big" bust, but it’s probably a one-off, or a once-in-a-while type of bust, being the greater part dealt by individuals reporting them, and thus, after someone likely has gone and installed the extension to act in all it’s splendour.

Interestingly enough, the above linked article point to the basis of the bust being PhishFort, who highlights the modus-operandi of these crooked extensions (see https://www.phishfort.com/blog/chrome-extension-phishing). Most of those 49 extensiones seemed to be run by the same guy/group, who would send the phished data to a common set of backends and/or a GoogleDocs form. Ledger was the most targeted type of wallet (57% of the 49 reported extensions). A drop in the ocean probably ...

In addition to what @Harkorede stated, there were also a group of Hero Members that received 1K Merits (instead of 500 Merits) during the Merit System kick-off.

Now asking about Merit Sources here, in the same context, may mean you are mixing-up Merits and sMerits. Your first question was about the initial Merits for each forum member (awarded to all forum accounts on the 25/01/2018, who were at least Member rank or above – Jr. Members did not require any merits back then), and Merit Sources are rather more about sMerits (sendable Merits).

Merits: Non-sendable, non-reducible (except on rare abuse circumstances).
sMerits: Sendable, reducible (when sending). You obtain 1 sMerit to send to others for every 2 earned Merits (which originate by somebody sending you sMerits in turn).

In addition to the initial Merits, forum members also received a variable sum of sMerits during the Merit System kick-off (depending on their rank and activity over the prior running year). Merit Sources’s sMerit monthly allowance differs from each other, and may vary over time (whenever allowances are revised.)  

A parte de reportar las extensiones fraudulentas directamente en Google (https://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/answer/7508032?hl=en), hay iniciativas que investigan las extensiones de Chrome en masa. El pasado febrero, Google dio de baja unas 500 extensiones (no específicas del ámbito cripto), a raíz del trabajo de unos investigadores especializados en la seguridad. Ellos utilizaron CRXcavator, una herramienta gratuita de Cisco para valorar el riesgo de extensiones Chrome.

ver: https://duo.com/labs/research/crxcavator-malvertising-2020#top

 Esto parece la segunda parte del mundo financiero vs Libra y afines, solo que en lugar de llamarlos por su nombre directamente (no cita Libra en las 67 páginas del documento), los enmarcan bajo un paraguas común, con alcance mayor al abarcar todas las stablecoins.

En todo caso, aunque las recomendaciones se fijen en mayor grado en los stablecoins (-to-be), también cubre los criptoactivos "inestables" (licencia literaria mía, en contraposición a los "estables"):
[/b]
https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P140420-1.pdf

Por ejemplo, en la siguiente cita:

Nota: Creo que este tema se abrió ayer también: Bancos centrales presionados para el BAN de las stablecoins - AdiOs Tether!

You should be able to. For example, this profile corresponds to a Newbie Copper Member, and he has a working link in his signature: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2774676. Same here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2783384

I modified the above quote to display the image you meant to display (your prnt.sc image does not seem to show)

What are you trying to include in your signature? An image? It should be created in BBCode.

See for example: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727100.0][LEARN] BBCode Lessons & Tutorials [+tutorial videos!] [/url]. There are also some WYSIWYG kind of editors around the www.

Newbie -> No signature
Copper Member -> equates signature to that of a Member


This is an a summary of signature possibilities per rank:
Copper Membership equates Member row in the above table.

Don’t you mean after registering?

During: Yes, you can choose your username (providing it is not already taken) and add your email.
After: No, you may not edit your username(*), but you can change your email.

There are very few exceptions to this, such as becoming a VIP (and cashing our 50 BTCs in the event).

Additionally, sextortion attempts are surging again, in light of there being so many people confined to their homes, and playing with the odds being higher for people watching porn. Yesterday in Spain, during the daily government/institutional press conference on the situation of the Corinavirus, the police force issued a warning concerning these practices (sextortion, not watching porn), demanding something like a 1500$ equivalent in BTC.

There was an additional warning during the press conference (in Spain) on Covid-related scams, related to false offers of material (masks, gloves and so forth), as well as emails with malicious links to information on the matter.

No has de mirar únicamente el aspecto reputacional, como bien apunta @seoincorporation, sino revisar muy bien que la url de acceso que utilices para acceder o descargar sea la correcta (y no una creada con un nombre similar para hacer phising o llenarlo de links maliciosos). Desafortunadamente, hay muchos intentos de timos en este mundillo, y hay que andar con mil ojos.

El tema es que la exposición de las claves puede dar lugar a que te lleguen a impersonar, o bien utilizar las mismas para acceder a otros sites comunes, donde puedas haber empleado las mismas credenciales. Dado que en el proceso de registro te pide el email, también puede llegar a la ejecución de campañas de phishing.

A todo esto, añadir que hay reportes de fallos de seguridad en el propio aplicativo que son peligrosos, y que pueden llegar a dar acceso remoto a tu ordenador a terceros. Vamos, casi nada (potencialmente).

Pongamos por hipótesis que la predicción de Niklas Nikolajsen (Bitcoin Suisse) se torna cierta (ver https://es.cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-will-follow-ethereum-and-move-to-proof-of-stake-says-bitcoin-suisse-founder), y que Bitcoin pasa de POW a POS en un momento futurible. ¿Qué riesgos y cambios de equilibrios podrían darse?

Personalmente, no me identifico con ninguno de los perfiles propuestos, por lo menos en la actualidad. Holder sí, pero tampoco entro a comprar en el dip. Estoy en una etapa personal un tanto escéptica en muchos planos, y Bitcoin no iba a ser menos.

Supongo que la coyuntura no ayuda, pero ahora es cuando reflexionas sobre ciertas creencias que, a la postre, demuestran ser menos importantes o de menor transcendencia de la que uno partía.

I thought this was an old thread but no, fresh from today´s oven (albeit using and old recipe). Regardless, do go ahead and show those established members, in order to get a sense of the dimension of the issue being discussed here (if not nominally, numerically).

Likely existed from the very first day, and pretty much unavoidable, although in big picture, the number of cases and amounts are expected to be small in proportion, to the point that it should be deemed pretty much meaningless (although, at this stage, unused airdropped sMerits are perhaps more of a risk than a potential benefit in my opinion).
 
You don’t really need rank that much unless it’s to benefit from campaigns. If people find alternatives they prefer, it’s their prerogative, but to discuss there is no need to escalate to any rank at all (although Jr. Member is desirable to be able to include images, which sometimes help to explain or refer to specific information).

It’s been discussed tons of times. The Merit System pivots around various key factors which I assume are monitored, and are moving in the currently intended ranges:

- Currently there is a more or less constant flow of merits of around 4,7K-6,7K per week. That could be increased by means of additional merit sources or allowance, but I figure it targets and intended weekly/monthly amount. I presume that the figure is more or less thought out.

- Each week there are something like 550 – 650 different sMerit awarders (with obvious different weights), which ensures some diversity of criteria.

- There are also between 800 and 1.000 different sMerit receivers per week. Out of those, around 100 are first time receivers. This latter may be an indicator to watch.

- The number of people that rank-up can (and is) be monitored.

Now could it if be moving at a faster pace?
Sure, but I’m not sure that the current parameters fall short of what is currently intended. I mean more sMerits could be pumped into the system through the Merits Sources (ideally through more sources in any case), or the 2:1 ratio (2 earned Merits: 1 generated sMerit) ratio could be altered (i.e. 3:2 ratio).
Those accounts that really put some time and effort scale the ranks (whether it’s their intent or not) without too much of an issue. Time is an important factor though.

There’s no need for that. Changing the rank’s requirements could be done without the above (i.e. lower the merit requirement for some mid-high ranks). If it has not been done, I assume it’s because it’s thought to be acceptable as is.

Y ya puestos, hasta el momento en el que cierre el chiringo, te cobra una comisión del 35% a modo de costes de gestión; es decir, usura apilada sobre el timo ya acusado como sistema ponzi, con un periodo de retén de 90 días de tu aportación inicial, y (obviamente) sin el aval de la CNMV.

Ver: https://www.brokeronline.es/robo-advisor/mind-capital/
 

There is no Malaysian local board, but rather a thread instead, since it does not have enough activity to constitute a local board per se: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85430.1480

Those are the main forum rules, although some boards (and even threads) may have some specific additional rules. You’ll need to check the stickies of the boards you visit just in case.

As you wish. Just bear in mind that, even if you are friends, you should also pay attention to some not written forum rules that point to being ethical between friendly accounts, especially in terms of meriting them (i.e. don’t just merit them (when the time comes) because they are your friends, but rather because they deserve it).

Neutral trust is logically better than negative trust, as the intention behind is to leave feedback that one does not consider is really enough to qualify as a commercial positive trust, nor did not ir go as bad as to warranting a subjective negative review. Neutral nevertheless is often used to leave all sort of additional non-commercial related feedback, and if it must go anywhere, neutral feedback is the better suited place (as opposed to non-commercial/scam related positive or negative feedback). It often reflects reverted negative trust when this is removed, and the issuer still wants to leave a trail of this fact.


Note: Normally, you should try to minimize the amount of posts in a row that you make (namely one if possible, in order to comply with the forum rules), especially if they are consecutive in a very short period of time (such as is the case). Even if you created a post to answer/ask separately a set of forum members, it is best to do so in a single post, quoting the extracts that you consider necessary.

A minor usage of archived pages is that of being able to retrieve statistical information on a given date. For example, the forum number of posts and topics (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php) can be retrieved for a variety of dates from sites such as TheWayBackMachine, which allows to obtain a snapshot of the situation at a given (and archived) point in time.

One additional thing to ponder here is the actual content of the feedback that is left on peoples profiles, and whether that is meaningful to you or not. Theoretically, Trust feedback should be commerce related (scams may fall under this category), and although this has been emphasized often enough, there is a lot of feedback that does not fit the profile.

Since the Feedback is open text, it has and will be used for a wide range of alternative reasons. Take for example the small amount of Trust feedback on my profile (both on the Trusted feedback – which plays alongside the Trust scores, and the Untrusted feedback): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1582324;dt

The seven feedbacks that led to my +7 positive on my Trust Score are all accurate, and although I consider myself a trustworthy person on principle, the feedback is not commerce related, and therefore, accurate as it may be, theoretically should not really be positive Trusts but rather neutral (although I don’t like neutral for that use either, since it breaks the commerce notion, even if on a milder scale).
On my Untrusted Feedback (which means that it was not originated by a DT member, or your Custom Trust Network, or their Trust network members up to your level of visibility) there is a similar positive Feedback, and two veil attempts at retaliation for tagging some other forum members for being scammers).

So really, you need to read the feedback to get a better composition of the profile, although the scores act as an introductory level bird’s view.