Man, I am so sleep deprived it's not funny--I thought you were saying a caul is an instant exchange rather than 'BetterCallRaul' (which I find absurd, BTW).  I had to double-check the definition before I realized what you were saying.

Anyway, I guess I made a bad assumption once again.  I always thought campaign managers used some kind of bot to make sure that participants never changed their signature.  So it would have been possible for someone in the Chipmixer campaign, for example, to change what was in their sig space for a time as long as nobody noticed?  Wow.  I've had the aforementioned assumption in my head for years.

That's definitely a good point, and I've long realized what you said about campaign earnings being so much higher than job wages in countries like Pakistan.  It's probably the main reason why so many people from countries with shit wages come here to earn money.  Aaaaand problems arise....everything from posts in incomprehensible English to cheaters to pretty much anything shady you can imagine.  Crazy.

That freaked me out for a second, as a 'caul' is an anatomical term and it made me wonder what the hell that campaign is all about.  Lol.

How did this scunt wind up wearing two signatures long enough to get paid by both campaigns?  Maybe I'm missing something very obvious, but I've always understood that if you're in a campaign and change your signature even briefly, it's noted by the campaign manager....somehow.  I never understood the somehow, but is that not the case?  And if it were as easy as switching sigs and trying to fool managers, we'd be seeing way more of these shenanigans.

OP, first of all I'm sorry you got scammed--truly.  However it might have been advisable for you to have done a modicum of research about bitcointalk before trusting someone on it enough to make a deal, especially with bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency which I assume was your payment method.

What acroman08 wrote is true: scams aren't moderated here, though the community tries to put out the fires whenever there's smoke.  That thread isn't going to be deleted, but I'm going to red-tag him right now as a warning to everyone that there's a scam accusation against him. 

You really ought to make a proper scam accusation with all the info in case he comes here and defends himself.  If there's no evidence and you don't come back, I'll probably remove my tag.

Just to address the above statement only: if you can live with Ledger's closed-source code, it's still a good wallet that doesn't require buyers of it to have their private keys split up into shards and placed into other people's hands.

The first thing that popped into my head was that this "service" would make it incredibly easy for governments/law enforcement agencies to seize assets from anyone who uses it, as I'm sure none of the three parties in control of the shards would defy court orders--and who knows, they might even give up the info without such an order.  That's the problem; you don't know what's going to happen when you're not in control of your private keys.

Ugh.  This is fucking awful.

LOL.  Assuming I even used a chat app like OP did, if I'd gotten a message like that not only would I have immediately blocked the user, but it wouldn't have crossed my mind to create a thread on bitcointalk about it.  Not sure if this is a merit-grab attempt or what, but if people have common sense (and it's questionable whether that's true) they'd realize an unsolicited message with the tone and content shown in the example here is either some idiot with too much time on their hands at best OR an obvious attempt at sucker-baiting for a scam at worst.

I know nobody would admit this on a public discussion forum, but have any of you actually fallen prey to messages like this one?  And by that I mean getting scammed because of receiving one.  My guess?  Probably not.

If that's skeptical, I'm well beyond that point--if AI ever gets to the point where it can actually replace human beings in the workplace, capitalism is going to be completely redefined.  Probably corporations will have to pay an enormously high tax rate in order to support all the people unable to find jobs, which means bigger government and a world moving closer toward George Orwell's dystopian vision (though we're damn close to that already).

It's either that or Terminators start coming back from the future to kill Skynet in the crib.  But you know what?  By the time that happens, I'll have done that whole dust-to-dust thing and won't have to worry about it.  My condolences to future generations; technology really has given you an ass-reaming, even if the current generations haven't realized it yet.

You did what to who and why, again?  Goddamn I love a good drama, but I don't understand what's going on behind the scenes with this coin (or what was going on, as apparently they've gone dark).  Not sure why the wifey got the smackdown from you if the hubby didn't benefit or screw anyone over.  Perhaps you could clarify that?

LCC is actually one of a small number of altcoins I've had my eye on for a while.  I like the beehive feature, which is sort of like a staking lottery thing.  It's unique as far as I can tell, although there's nothing special about anything else.

Of course, and I'm pretty sure we both know what it is and it's how most ANN threads keep getting bumped to the top of the section.  This particular thread doesn't seem as shilly as most, nor do the comments seem as idiotic as what you'll usually find in other threads for new shitcoins.

Um, yeah.  There are thousands of cryptocurrencies in existence.  Has anyone here asked themselves what another one could possibly improve upon?  I read the description for Volkshash, and the coin's just a variation on a theme that we've all seen.  It's got attributes that every other shitcoin has; they're just modified a little bit--but who the hell cares?

I'm curious about what trojan you're referring to.

Dead silence, except  of course for whatever constructive posts OP is trying to make in order to rank up.  I'm not sure if I see this as a merit-begging thread or not (though I've been awake going on 56.5 hours now, and the input from my eyes sometimes gets scrambled on its way to my brain and back to the keyboard), but the observation that other members getting more merits than he does, ostensibly with the same post quality, strikes me as a bit juvenile.

I had to skip to the second page of this thread to see if you'd posted anything about what those members told you, but I guess that's going to remain a mystery, though if any of them told you you can merit yourself without employing an alt account, they're full of shit.

OK, now we're definitely in merit-grabbing territory when those silly lists get busted out.  I will refer back to Wiwo's comment about staying silent and just doing your best without all of this blibber-blabber.

I did not recognize that username, and before I searched for his profile I made an assumption that the account was probably created in 2017 or so when bitcoin was taking off like a bottle rocket and there was at least one thread going about buying houses/real estate with BTC.  I was mistaken, as he hasn't been here nearly that long (which makes the ranking up to Sr. Member all the more impressive).

Congrats to everyone on the updated list!  It still seems like there should be a lot more members ranking up, but I don't have any data to compare to how it was prior to the merit system kicking off, so perhaps I'm imagining things. 

Good, give back whatever you get; it keeps the merit system running smoothly if you do.  But about that whole 'decaying' thing....I don't think I've seen an instance of someone losing any amount of sMerits because they didn't give them away fast enough.  I know Theymos put a warning in there back in 2018 when he created the system, but I wouldn't give that a second thought.  Even if you don't give out any merits for months, I'm nearly 100% sure that you'll still have the same number of sMerits as you had.

I haven't finished reading the thread and probably won't since I'm doing a post history review, but has anyone else seen an example of sMerits disappearing from anyone's account because of inactivity?

I will slaughter you yet, fellow Merit Cycling Club member or not.  I shall leave the bloodied sword atop the Building With No Windows so as to wave my own flag, you pretender.  You cowardly drunkard, you.
LOLLY-FOX!!

Even if you're currently not on the DT list (and I have no idea where I or anyone else stand, either), my suggestion is to still leave feedback as if you are--because chances are that with the rotating system you'll end up on it again eventually and it will light things up bright red for anyone you've tagged.  I'm probably telling you what you already know, but thought I'd say it anyway.

Vod used to do that consistently, but I can't even remember the last time I visited the lending section.  I always thought getting tagged for asking for a no-collateral loan was extremely harsh, because it really ought to be an issue between the borrower and any potential lender, and I've seen plenty of green-trusted members who've done it with no consequences.  A warning given within such a thread would be more appropriate IMO, but that's just me.

Agree 100%.  If I'm looking at a wall of red trust and none of them have valid reference links, I'm inclined to believe they're retaliatory (*ahem* take a look at my trust page for instance).  Without a way to validate whether someone deserves a negative, it's a waste of time giving one IMO.

I had no idea what was causing the network congestion, and thanks to OP for starting this thread.  As to your comment, slaman29, I sort of agree; I don't know how many people actually use bitcoin to buy things, but I suspect it's a small but nontrivial amount.  There's probably not much a bitcoiner can do to avoid this shit--network fees have been crazy before, and it happens from time to time.  Right now if I'm not mistaken, some of said congestion has been relieved, no?

Honestly, if you're going to be buying anything using crypto through a payment processor you're probably better off keeping some litecoin or doge in reserve since those are usually accepted as well.  I've always thought bitcoin was a much better investment vehicle than it is a currency, and this nonsense is doing nothing to sway my opinion.

That's true, but damn is the network congested as all hell right now! 

I've been around long enough to have seen periods like this before, and even though I know it's going to get better I still understand people's frustration with the massive network fees at the moment.  Even if you wanted to use bitcoin to buy something today (which was the whole point initially, right?) you wouldn't be able to in a timely fashion, or a cheap one.

But bitcoin isn't dead, and that isn't what OP is saying.  What he is saying is that this is a great example of why bitcoin isn't an ideal currency--and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, OP, but this crap is a problem and always has been from time to time.  However, there's no other coin that has anywhere near the support, community, or even mainstream media coverage than bitcoin.  It's spot as the #1 crypto isn't in jeopardy. 

That sort of talk will die off as soon as the congestion is relieved.

Now I'm just saying here, there's something to be said for NOT campaign-hopping, even if you suddenly find one that pays better.  I've never been a campaign manager, but I'd imagine that they do take notice of the practice and would be less likely to accept you into another one of theirs if they think you're just going to ditch it the moment a better opportunity arises--and there's probably not all that much of a payout increase to take that risk, no? 

Just my opinion given to those who might be new or might not have considered it, and obviously you can take it for whatever it's worth.

LOL.  You said that in jest (I think), but it's a damn good idea--there are many instances I can think of where it'd be useful to just wipe away all of certain members' posts and threads.

Regarding jerry0, I'm not sure what to think about whatever it is he's up to right now.  I've never thought he's posting just to post, as so many members here do.  He's always struck me as someone who's way more paranoid about crypto security than most.  There's a lot to be concerned about to be sure, but even when things are explained to him logically and in great detail he still doesn't seem satisfied with the answers.  What can you do about someone like that?

If he's posting all of these things in good faith....just hit the ignore button if you think it's too much.

I never really had a good grasp of what the market for bitcointalk accounts was in terms of what rank goes for what amount, but if, say, the market was getting soft or if you had a member who just wanted to ditch the forum and get what they could for the account(s) they have, those dollar values don't seem to be dirt cheap IMO.  Does anyone have a sense of what a Legendary account would sell for these days?  I'm just curious.

This account mentioned in the OP is obviously just a throwaway one, and I think creating a flag against him is overkill.  Why?  Because even with a flag and red trust from the entire DT list, no account buyer would give it a second thought unless there was evidence that he'd scammed someone before--and even then it's a gamble.

Good looking out, OP.  I wouldn't waste time other than to give him a neg, but personally I appreciate you bringing idiots like this to the community's attention.

I don't remember the drama surrounding this member (not surprising since it was so long ago), but from what I've read here it looks like plagiarism might be only one rule that he broke, with the other major one being ban evasion.  Can "salvation" be earned in four years?  Certainly.  Do I think OP has done anything to suggest that he's going to be any more honest than he was when he got permabanned?  Nope.

I also question why he wants to return to bitcointalk now, with that specific account (I'm pretty sure he has others, likely still active).  He's probably got plans to put it to use in some way, and my guess is that whatever he's got in mind will either lead to shitposts or some variety of shady activity.  Not that the ban appeal process is a democratic one, but my vote is to let it stand as is.

Props to you and tread93 for giving back to the community.  When I'm doing post history reviews on request, sometimes I take a look at how many sMerits members are sending--just out of curiosity; I don't take that into account when I'm actually making a decision whether to merit posts.  I try to gently encourage people to pay it forward when they thank me for showering them with merits, and I hope they do, but it'd take more of a madman than me to keep tabs on stats like that.

OP, have you never visited the BPIP site EFS linked to?  If not, I highly encourage you to check it out.  It was Vod's baby before he left the forum, and he did an excellent job with the features.  If I'm not mistaken, suchmoon is now in charge of it (but correct me if I'm wrong).  In any case, it's a site you'll probably want to bookmark.

The community doesn't need babysitting, but given that scams aren't moderated here we need all the scam-busters we can get.  I would also add that anyone who tries to take on a role like that won't garner any support, much less make it onto DT, if the accusations they sling don't hold any water.

I have not looked at DireWolfM14's sent feedback, but he's proven himself a trusted member of the forum and I haven't seen any controversy surrounding any negative trust or scam accusations he might have levied against anyone--at least not recently or that I can recall.  This looks like a bunch of bitching by members who aren't trusted against a member who has a lot to lose by being wrong.

Doubt he's going to change his mind, boys.  Better lock this up and try harder next time.