HE CAME ONLINE BUT NO REPLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, I've been watching this thread until the user in question appeared online. His failure to respond has led me to tag him. I'll keep an eye out in case that it gets resolved. |
|
|
|
It is recommended that you use the proper scam format in the future (hopefully you will not have to) as found here. However, in the current case it is fine.
You shouldn't deal with newbies without escrow. Anyhow, I've tagged the user in question. |
|
|
|
Updated FAQ to include the most frequent questions being asked via PM: 1. Why am I banned?
If you find yourself on the first list, you were banned for low quality posts / spam. If you're on the second list, you broke some campaign rules (it would be properly commented with a '#' in the ban round). If you're on the last list, you are permanently banned (don't bother sending me a PM).
3. How can I get unbanned?
Send a PM to me (do not post here) with the date or round in which you were banned in. I will respond to these requests usually within 7 days. Only apply for a unban/review if 30 days have passed since your ban.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply - is there any way of determining which moderator deleted the proof?
Not unless they come forward or an admin tells you who it was (which is even less likely). The post was deleted for being off-topic, i.e. because you've posted the evidence in that sales topic IMO. I could be wrong.
Interesting chain of evidence anyway. This would be a new plot-twist. |
|
|
|
Stabilization above $1000 is showing an even a bigger bullish trend? I am not selling. Anything. It looks like I was right. I'm still not selling. As we approach the $1100 price point on the western exchanges, it is time to post my favorite gif again:  |
|
|
|
Inactivity is a kind of spam ?
Your actions don't have to be labeled 'spam' for you to get blacklisted from a campaign. I just want to confirm whether SMAS covers inactivity ?
I've just checked, and it seems that Lutpin took the full list instead of the list with people that got banned for spamming. The people that were personally banned by Yahoo shouldn't be in the SMAS list, similarly the people that I've banned for breaking the rules in Bitmixer shouldn't (and aren't) either. |
|
|
|
I would like to add a rule that applies to managers:
Write the rules clearly when starting a campaign and stick to them until the campaign ends, do not change the rules during the campaign period!
That won't work. Campaign rules tend to change over time (e.g. payout rates, sections being counted), especially if the owner has desirable changes in mind. While such changes probably should not be done in the middle of the week, you can't force managers to not do so via some 'rule'.
Your case is quite specific, but I don't want to comment on it further. My response was directed towards campaigns in general in accordance to your suggested 'rule'. |
|
|
|
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?
Simple: Other DT members suggested that this is the appropriate step to make as the rating was borderline acceptable. Lauda called someone retarded in March 2016, then when I called lauda out about how this is not appropriate behavior of a moderator, I received a negative rating from Lauda regarding an unrelated issue that had allegedly happened then-6 months ago.
Correct. I was out of line, and I've learned better thanks to you pointing that out. Your rating has nothing to do with that. Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.
Wrong. My rating was only removed after the misleading title was withdrawn (which is why it was left in the first place). I couldn't care less about the thread. The change of heart was the OP's doing after they came back from their 'vacation'. Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.
Those ratings were exchanged because I harshly criticized BG4 (among other things), not the other way around. The situation was later (randomly) remedied by a third party. The rating defcon23..
I don't even want to comment on this person.
Maybe I should apologize for not keeping eternal grudges. |
|
|
|
Updated chart   Thank you! I have always liked this gif, and one can now easily find it on Viber (first result if one uses "@GIPHY bitcoin price"). I've uploaded the updated version to Giphy. Stabilization above $1000 is showing an even a bigger bullish trend? I am not selling. Anything. |
|
|
|
you incorrectly interpreted my words, I know how to works trust system, and at which level what has.
of course I can not do it myself, but I can initiate this, and I have no doubt a positive result, regardless he has left plenty of valid ratings.
You incorrectly expressed yourself; that's the problem, thus my assumption of a flawed understanding of the trust system. Anyhow, let us know once you are done waiting. |
|
|
|
I does not take action against him ,(red paint, kick from DT) until he not log in again,(it may not happen at all)
because it not make sense , since his Feedbacks accurate, In this situation, win only scammers, which he has tagged, while I lose additional some trust score.
You can't kick him from DT and your own 'red paint' isn't effective since you are not in DT2 either. He's under Tomatocage (DT1), thus can be only removed by Tomatocage themselves or via the exclusions of two other DT1 members. Him being inactive will not get him kicked from DT2 because he has left plenty of valid ratings (maybe if someone else confirms all/most of them).
It comes down to you as to how long you want to wait until you label this as a scam. Until such time, I will only leave a neutral rating. |
|
|
|
-snip-
But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?
I hope their idea works out, i am planning to change most of my monetary transactions to bitcoin based ones....would be a shame if it dies.
That would be the *right* path towards decentralization. Good luck with a decentralized coin in which malicious entities can spam up to ~140 GB worth of data per month (and this is by just counting the 32 MB blocks). -snip-
Unfortunately, fast, cheap, global, decentralized, onchain massive volume transactions all in one doesn't exist. If someone came up with that idea, then that someone would release a new coin and this new coin would go from 0 to hero, but as of right now, it's a pipe dream.
So best we got is a "small-ish" or conservative block size, then building on top. I don't see any other method that would remain as decentralized. Im ok with an increase to 2MB, but we must do it right, and right means we must get segwit activated before doing so.
If you take a look in r/btc you will find that some of these *people* tend to quote Satoshi often to suit their agenda. They seem to be fine with using SPV wallets (which is an absurd trade-off). You're right about the in-existence of the mentioned combination. Either it's a decentralized coin with small TPS (1 layer) or it's a centralized coin with a high TPS. |
|
|
|
ODD! Just received the following via an email account I've only used here (and not disclosed) not too long ago.
Is that a new email address created recently, or an old email address that was not used anywhere else? Please define 'not too long ago'. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
