Discussion! I just saw this news and freaked out.

Source: https://hub.elliptic.co/analysis/has-a-sanctioned-bitcoin-mixer-been-resurrected-to-aid-north-korea-s-lazarus-group/

Like Blender, Sinbad is a custodial mixer, meaning that its operator has full control over the cryptoassets deposited within it.

Elliptic analysis indicates that Sinbad is in fact highly likely to be a rebrand of Blender, with the same individual or group responsible for it. In particular:

• Analysis of blockchain transactions shows that, before it was publicly launched, a “service” address on the Sinbad website received Bitcoin from a wallet believed to be controlled by the operator of Blender – presumably in order to test the service.
• Analysis of blockchain transactions shows that a Bitcoin wallet used to pay individuals who promoted Sinbad, itself received Bitcoin from the suspected Blender operator wallet.
• Analysis of blockchain transactions shows that almost all of the early incoming transactions to Sinbad (some $22 million) originated from the suspected Blender operator wallet.
• The on-chain pattern of behavior is very similar for both mixers, including the specific characteristics of transactions, and the use of other services to obfuscate their transactions.
• The way in which the Sinbad mixer operates is identical to Blender in several ways, including ten-digit mixer codes, guarantee letters signed by the service address, and a maximum seven-day transaction delay.
• There are strong similarities in the structure of both services’ websites, as well as in their use of language and naming conventions.
• Both services have a clear nexus to Russia, with Russian-language support and websites.

Blender may have been motivated to re-brand in order to avoid sanctions, and OFAC could now seek to impose further sanctions on Sinbad. It may also have done so in order to gain trust from users, following Blender’s abrupt closure last year, and the disappearance of significant amounts of funds from the mixer.

Isn't it forbidden? Can someone clarify this?

I think this is a veiled call that should be banned as the thread will be filled with non-organic posts.

10% bonus for providing support on Hunnyplay Ann thread in absence of the forum representative.

[In no case do not connect your ETH wallet to this site!]

This verified twitter account is hosting a giveaway posing as the LooksRare project.



Coinmarketcap says that the domain name of this project is different (.org).



When you go to this phishing site you see a countdown but when you refresh the page you have the timer set back to 13 minutes.



In no case do not connect your ETH wallet to this site!



I have already reported this to twitter support.

In my seven years of existence on this forum, I have seen many people, and in my opinion Lauda was one of the most influential people here. I take into account only ordinary users, those who are not related to Bitcoin Core. I'm talking about those people who have influence on the public.

Tell  who you think is influential and why.

https://bpip.org/Report?r=mostmerit

Users from this list best fit the description.

[Ratimov:]

1. Ratimov is an inveterate liar who publishes deliberately false facts.

Ratimov: More than 8 months have passed between these cases, where is the connection? Your saying would be true if I created a topic about airfinex a few days after he accused me.
The Pharmacist: The timing says it all, IMO, and I'm talking about the timing between airfinex's post here and the creation of this thread.
LoyceV: Just last week, airfinex posted in "~", which you responded to several times. The 8 months are irrelevant, you posted this just half an hour before you created this topic:

2. There is no more egregious case of text-spinning with the help of Google translator than the case of Ratimov.

—if Ratimov did not deny in principle, that publishing something in the form in which he publishes it is a bad example.
—if Ratimov had not chosen to reply with an ad hominem attack against an accusation brought with evidence.

3. Constantly demonstrates extremely arrogant and devil-may-care attitude towards the community, he deleted posts but there is an archive.

Thanks to RapTarX, suchmoon, icopress, The Pharmacist, Poker Player for constructive answers ON THEME. The rest of the speculation and blah blah are not interesting to me.

4. Ratimov regularly resorts to mutual exclusion on the basis of revenge, eddie13, DireWolfM14 expressed his opinion and he added him to the list of distrust.

3000+ merits for using Google translate eh? What a great method of distributing DT voting power ..

To me this looks like a blatant attempt to attack some one who called you out.  I know you've developed a few supporters here, but I suspect that they too will cease their support if you keep making these obvious retaliatory attacks.  Deflection and "What-About-ism" doesn't absolve you of your sins.

[he facts of this case:]

I see that JGood has started to leave red tags to everyone in a row, and it doesn't bother me at all as long as he does it with an open mind.

Therefore, I want to check whether he will mark those who deserve it or ignore this thread?

The facts of this case:

2 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue)

1. GeorgeJohn
2. Ebede

Proof:

[snip]

Miscellaneous:
If you look on their applications Ebede was send earlier before Georgejohn so the person controlled both of this accounts are hurry up when he want to drop the application of the bounties. Both of the accounts already deleted their applications, Ebede was known promoting scam casino 1xbit. Even both of the accounts doesn't cheat a bounty or signature campaign, it's worth to note he's greedy promoting scam sites with alt accounts to make a lot money.

Thank you for understanding that some persons  developed enemies with me just like that, and they want my account to be ban, which i don't know their reason, yes of course i know the know vividly the owner of ebede account, and it's my course mate in University, the same course and the same department, and i introduced him to bitcointalk community then before we separated, the ebede normally use my system to do almost his academic work both graphics design and other works, so on that day of April fool he used my laptop to login bitcointalk community, before i could notice he has dropped a Post that contains all my information..so when i noticed i deleted it. I'm not denying the fact that i don't know the user ebede i know him in person and is a course mate. I want to know if i will be penalize because of a newbie mistake using my laptop do work. I know many some people want to kick me out from bestchange signature campaign i join.

Challenge accepted.

1 Using Delta symbol to list an item, how can you prefer to choose Delta symbol while this forum had insert list BBcode or you could use number / alphabet list.

∆ understanding
∆ observation
∆ passion to overcome issues

∆ Through Twitter publication
∆ Through Telegram publication
∆ Through Instagram publication
∆ Through Facebook publication
∆ Through newspaper publication
∆ Through Television such as BBC's and satellite

2 Very like to create multiple unnecessary thread about forum rules, rank, quality post, motivation, guideline seeking for merit. You're a newbie why you guiding to newbie too?

The quality of our work attracts good response and also make us not to be fearful, because the first time I login my account I was unable to understand the forum because I don't know the direction to follow untill i observed these group, despite that am not too good to understand everything in the group now but believing that with time i will follow up, but the little research i made  i understand that good quality contributes for the growth of user, and also reading of work like twice before posting also create good impact of quality post.

I understand that many starters in forum their primary concerns is to ranked up without knowing the criteria of the group or forum, I think many people are once a newbie before getting to certain position, I think what should help all new members is to study the environment first before looking for uplift, understanding the rules and regulations of these honourable forum perfectly and it will enable us beginner's to create a positive solution's in future through the community.

making a quality post
 Making a quality post does not required long paragraph, it's based on how meaningful the work is, so write a post especially newbie like me, I think we have to pass through processes, which is adequate research, observation and something that are different from the work of others.
From my observation I foun that most of the topic in Bitcointalk community we discuss today has already been treated, discussed for long time. People framed or interchange the words in a modern form.

A quality post :are one of the major criteria to earn merit and well recognize to the forum, a beginners  most know  how to make a quality  post both from local  board and public  board, because  good quality  of post attracts a campaign to hire a member and to be merited.

Beginners are conscious to ranked up in the forum without proper research and observation and hardworking.

Hardworking is the activation energy of begginers to make quality post without obstruction.
A begginer most follow the full steps of the seniors like the following @suchmoon,@ loycev,@welsh, @loyce777, @ upgrade. And other members who are highly intellectual in order to propagate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5262255.msg54797349#msg54797349

A quality post is a post that is answerable to a question, and also a post that brings a solution to a question even though it's a two lines stanza of an article that's well arranged, coordinated, constructed, understandable and also meaningful, but from my perspective some user's misunderstood what we meant by a quality post or a quality article, i have come across of some varieties of post's in the community and it trigger's me to put it in writing, i seen some user's making an ambiguous articles And taught that a large numbers of articles is granted or guarantee making of a tangible or nice post, [No]

This is what you called you and @Ebede are different body?

[But so be it, I will accept your offer on the following conditions:]

I missed the discussion in which Ratimov was caught in a lie, after which he removed his thread, but nothing. Therefore, for myself, I decided that I want to put an end to all these senseless disputes, and this will happen when Ratimov agrees to the counter terms of the dispute (a bet that he offered and not me).

Here are some topics to search for:

Here he selected a list of 30 threads and offered them for verification, considering me a brainless guy (since, apparently, before his proposal, he checked them for plagiarism). Therefore, I made him a counter offer.

A bold statement. I'll give you $5 000 if you can find the source of these threads that I recently created, since you boldly claim that all my threads are translations of other people. You can archive this post, and any trusted member of this community will confirm it.

Even if you really are the author of a couple of threads, then against the background of hundreds of translations you have published, it seems like a drop in the ocean.

But so be it, I will accept your offer on the following conditions:

1. You will use escrow and deposit $ 5,000 to DarkStar_ , Royse777, DireWolfM14 or Nutildah, (I think you will not be charged a commission).
2. I will not rely only on those that you published, I will look for plagiarism in all the threads you created.
3. For everything, as you suggested, a week will be enough for me.
4. If anyone finds plagiarism and publishes evidence before me, that person will receive the award.
5. If I find plagiarism, I will win the bet, but I will send you proofs in PM so that you can correct your mistake.

You have the right to refuse the bet, I and everyone present here will understand this, (I hope you haven't lost your courage). He has already publicly refused twice (veiledly changing the topic of conversation) if not, write simply "Agree" or "NO". I want to note that most likely he will begin to find fault with words and write in this thread that the subject of the dispute is not at all what he had in mind, so stock up on popcorn.

[What happened:]

What happened: A certain exchanger (bithub.im), which usually does not accept applications from 0 to 8 am Moscow time, unexpectedly started working at this time and went to the top in bitcoin directions.

It's easy to guess what happened next: users went to change at a "favorable rate", receiving nothing in return.

The administrator of the exchanger, having come in the morning, turned off the site and wrote standard unsubscriptions for 15 days, offering nothing to anyone or promising. Best_Change does the same, suggesting "wait for a solution to the situation" and "wait for new information." In fact, they limited themselves to removing the no longer working exchanger from their "reliable" monitoring, and all their real actions ended there. A lot of people were deceived, Balthazar counted about 30 people:

We told users that we were also held hostage to the situation. Due to the actions of cybercriminals, many users were affected for a large amount. The exchange office does not have such reserves to pay to all the victims. Therefore, we turned to lawyers and filed a statement with the police. Also, we are trying to find a way out of this situation that will satisfy all parties to the conflict. Our lawyers prepare recommendations for affected users. Unfortunately, all this takes time.

Both bithub.im and BestChange received a significant number of requests containing information about unpaid orders.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that a significant part of these requests contains false information and comes from scammers, which hosted the bithub.im site, we still cannot start actions to resolve the situation. BestChange apologizes to users for the long waiting period, however, for objective reasons, we are forced to conduct a full analysis of the incoming information. Unfortunately, this process takes a long time. Regarding the removal of reviews, we inform you that the policy of the BestChange service is aimed at preserving positive, negative and neutral reviews left by real users. In cases where we receive requests from exchange offices to remove reviews, we always ask to provide full information about the situation.

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5343984.0 Balthazar (с)
- https://www.bestchange.ru/bithub-exchanger.html Use the Google translate

Reality: bithub.im and BestChange have not been able to resolve the situation with payments for about two weeks, in addition, BestChange removes negative reviews on its website, saying that these reviews are bogus. BestChange is running a signature campaign on the forum so I doubt any of the DTs will create a flag or leave a red feedback.

[Make a minimum of 25 eligible (constructive) posts each week that you participate to receive a payment.]

Can someone explain the difference to me? In addition to the fact that the Moderator of the Russian Local protects people who abuse Google translations, he himself does not hesitate to informal plagiarism. Xal0lex adds quotes only to a small part of the copied text, and then adds a hidden link. In addition to the fact that Xal0lex does not publish such messages in the form of a full quote, it also places them in different threads to create the impression of authorship.

    - I marked the text that the moderator claims to be his own
    - I marked quotes
    - Before posting stupid reasoning, please first check the source, by copying and pasting the text that I have highlighted in red.

• Informal plagiarism is my definition of when a user publishes almost all posts as clippings from news sites. Thus, verbatim copying and adding a hidden link allows this moderator to fulfill the sig campaign quota without any problems.

Make a minimum of 25 eligible (constructive) posts each week that you participate to receive a payment.

When Hhampuz published the rules and talked about constructive posts, he meant constructive posts made by a campaign participant and not by a journalist of one of the news resources. Here's an example, or just check the post history of this moderator as it consists entirely of such posts!

Зapплaтa в кpиптoвaлютe. Boзмoжнo ли этo в Poccии?

Зaкoн «O финaнcoвыx цифpoвыx aктивax» пpямo нe зaпpeщaeт выплaчивaть зapплaтy цифpoвыми мoнeтaми. Ecть ли тaкaя вoзмoжнocть y poccиян и мoжeт ли oнa cтaть пoпyляpнoй cpeди житeлeй cтpaны.

C нaчaлa 2021 гoдa кpиптoвaлютa в Poccии пoлyчилa oфициaльный cтaтyc имyщecтвa. Этo пpoизoшлo пocлe вcтyплeнию в cилy зaкoнa «O финaнcoвыx цифpoвыx aктивax», кoтopый oфициaльнo зaпpeтил иcпoльзoвaть кpиптoвaлюты для oплaты тoвapoв и ycлyг. Ho в зaкoнe ничeгo нe гoвopитcя o вoзмoжнocти пoлyчaть зapaбoтнyю плaтy в кpиптoвaлютe. Oпpoшeнныe PБК-Кpиптo экcпepты oбъяcнили, мoгyт ли paбoтoдaтeли выплaчивaть зapплaтy цифpoвыми aктивaми и бyдeт ли тaкaя вoзмoжнocть пoльзoвaтьcя пoпyляpнocтью.

Teopeтичecки — вoзмoжнo

Житeли Poccии мoгyт пoлyчaть чacть зapплaты в нeдeнeжнoй фopмe, oбъяcнилa экcпepт Moscow Digital School Иpинa Mypaщeнкoвa. Пo ee cлoвaм, фopмa oплaты ycтaнaвливaeтcя в кoллeктивнoм или тpyдoвoм дoгoвope, нo ecть oгpaничeниe — дoля зapaбoтнoй плaты в нeдeнeжнoй фopмe нe мoжeт пpeвышaть 20%.

«Tepeтичecки, c yчeтoм тeкyщeгo cтaтyca кpиптoвaлюты в PФ, пpи coблюдeнии ycтaнoвлeнныx ycлoвий и oгpaничeний, выплaтa чacти зapплaты в кpиптoвaлютe вoзмoжнa и ceйчac», — oтмeтилa экcпepт.

Пocкoлькy зaкoн oгpaничивaeт paзмep нeдeнeжнoй чacти зapплaты, пoлyчaть вoзнaгpaждeниe пoлнocтью в кpиптoвaлютe нe пoлyчитcя, дoбaвилa Иpинa Mypaщeнкoвa.

Кpиптoвaлютa в Poccии нe мoжeт быть cpeдcтвoм плaтeжa, ee oбopoт cyщecтвeннo oгpaничeн, нaпoмнил члeн Кoмиccии пo пpaвoвoмy oбecпeчeнию цифpoвoй экoнoмики Mocкoвcкoгo oтдeлeния Accoциaции юpиcтoв Poccии Пaвeл Лaвpeнкoв. Пo eгo мнeнию, чтoбы зapaбoтнyю плaтy мoжнo былo выплaчивaть кpиптoвaлютoй, y нee дoлжeн быть cтaтyc, эквивaлeнтный нaциoнaльнoй вaлютe. Bpяд ли тaкoe бyдeт вoзмoжнo в ближaйшeм бyдyщeм, дoбaвил экcпepт.

Кoмy интepecнa кpиптoзapплaтa

Haибoльший интepec — y coтpyдникoв кpиптoвaлютныx cтapтaпoв, кpyпныx кoмпaний цифpoвoй cфepы, кpиптoбиpж. У пepcoнaлa или пpивлeчeнныx фpилaнcepoв тaкoгo бизнeca нeт cтpaxa пepeд кpиптoвaлютoй, тaк кaк oни пpeкpacнo знaют ee плюcы и минycы, и пoнимaют, чтo мoжнo cдeлaть c пoлyчeнными цифpoвыми мoнeтaми, yтвepждaeт Иpинa Mypaщeнкoвa. PБК-кpиптo

[was part of a deal - left without fulfilling his end of the bargain after buyer had already transferred funds to me (I was serving as escrow)]

Is it normal for a reputable escrow to engage in transactions related to the sale of accounts?

Hello! In the presence of 1 of your forum account Legendary bitcointalk.org
Account with a green trust. The account is different, not the one from which I made the post.
Price: $ 500
I agree to a guarantor!
Contacts: Telegram: @ kote75757
https://t.me/kote75757

À en juger par les commentaires laissés, le garant n'est pas satisfait car le vendeur s'est avéré être un trompeur.

MoparMiningLLC - 2021-02-17 - was part of a deal - left without fulfilling his end of the bargain after buyer had already transferred funds to me (I was serving as escrow)

In 9 years Foxpup has not sent a single positive feedback. Why? Is it somehow connected with his superiority over the rest? Even theymos sent positive feedback.

I recently saw one of the users talk about this. So I spent all day today looking for this information but mostly unsuccessfully. Does anyone have an argument for this? And it was a surprise for me today to find out that Lauda is a woman in her 40s.   

[Summary]

Summary

Patoshi is the name I gave to the prominent miner that in 2009-2010 mined about 1.1M bitcoins, and that some people associate with Satoshi Nakamoto. Last time I wrote about Patoshi was in April, 2019. At that time, I posted in order to clarify what we know, technically, about how Patoshi mined. Impossible was for me to foresee that one of the early coinbase being spent recently would cause such an impact in the crazy and uninformed market and the Patoshi pattern would be on the news. Nor I could foresee that a anonymous person would be signing 145 of the early coinbase keys to show a US court how Faketoshi committed fraud, and again everyone would go to check if those coinbases belonged to the Patoshi set.

These events triggered an impressive number of tweets, posts and videos about Satoshi. A new wave of Satoshi hunters appeared. But how many people actually pay attention to the technical details? Back in April I posted the following table showing the events where the timestamps of two consecutive blocks were reversed, and by how much time, in average, during the first years of Bitcoin mining:

Inversion of timestamps in consecutive blocks


You can see that the average timestamps deltas (when timestamps are inverted) largely differ between Patoshi and non-Patoshi blocks. I realized in 2019 this was far from normal, but I waited for somebody else to notice the oddity. In 2014, I published about the strange timestamp gaps. Well, it seems that few people reads my post until the end 🙂 Only one person (that preferred to remain anonymous) also detected the anomaly in Patoshi’s timestamps. Now enough time has passed, and still I don’t have a good explanation for the strange way Patoshi timestamped his blocks. Therefore in this post I will expand that research so that more people can think on this. I’ll also summarize possible (some maybe surprising) explanations. Let’s begin with an histogram of how timestamps differences (or “deltas”) are distributed between consecutive blocks in the first 50K blocks, when none of the blocks belong to the Patoshi pattern. In the X-axis we show buckets of 10 seconds each, so the labels on the X-axis show time in seconds divided by 10. In the Y-axis, we show the number of events counted for that slot.

Timestamp deltas between Non-Patoshi blocks in the first 50K blocks


Curved traced by the bar graph looks like an exponential distribution, as it should. There curve may not be a perfect exponential, as distributed timestamps are not fetched from an unique global clock, and also timestamps in nodes are not updated in a continued basis during mining, but only every few seconds. Nevertheless the graph looks as one would expect, and the average timestamp delta is 654 seconds.

It seems that most block timestamps generally start 312 (about 5 minutes) s seconds after the previous timestamp. Also it appears as if Patoshi refused to mine many blocks after 25 minutes (1500 seconds). This strange pattern is a new way to distinguish the Patoshi pattern from all other coinbase sets. We had three methods already (steep fast extranonce increment, reduced nonce LSB range, no timestamp reversals), and now we add a fourth (and in a next post I will show a fifth!). So why timestamp deltas are oddly distributed is a new unsolved mystery for our large collection. In my opinion, the existence of so many distinguishers is an indicator that Patoshi wanted his/her blocks to be identified.

If you look carefully at the timestamp delta distribution, there are a high number of timestamp deltas before 312 seconds that make for me even more difficult to explain the steep cliff shape. Luckily this one puzzle we can unravel with some information we already know. The reason of this “noise” is a segment in the Patoshi pattern that I named “Double Helix”, because it looks graphically as DNA. Here is a graph of this segment:

The double-helix interval in Patoshi pattern (blocks 1400-1916)


You can explore this pattern in SatoshiBlocks website. The double-helix pattern was probably caused by two instances of the Patoshi software/hardware running in parallel. We don’t know if this was a mistake made by Patoshi or it was intended for testing an improved mining setup. But the timestamps between blocks of the two Patoshi lines of the double-helix do not show the same delta distribution, as if internally, maybe due to physical proximity, there was no delay between blocks. Still it’s possible that Patoshi just turned off his mining equipment for about 5 minutes after mining a block. Is that plausible? How can we explain the differences in timestamp deltas?

• Patoshi turned off his mining equipment for about 5 minutes after mining a block. Maybe this was required in order to broadcast the block. Or maybe he was doing it to let other miners mine following blocks. The fact that Patoshi reduced his hashrate in several steps during the first year indicates that he may well be able to do it also at the block granularity. It’s even possible that the increased his hashrate if a block was delayed longer than 12 minutes, which could explain the strange timestamp delta distribution.
• Patoshi software avoided two blocks having the same timestamp. Therefore if a block was mined locally and immediately the mining of a following block began, then the following block timestamp would be artificially incremented a random number not less than 300 seconds.

The artificial addition time to the timestamp seems to be a better overall explanation, because it could also explain why after 25 minutes it seems that Patoshi reduces the number of mined blocks. Because we’re living difficult times, and since science without joy is too boring, I give you some far-fetched and fun explanations of the timestamp delta phenomenon:

• Patoshi was mining from outer space, somewhere in our solar system. It took approximately 150 seconds for the radio signals to travel to his spaceship. To compensate for the delay, and avoid being detected, he/she/it used a real-time clock being 300 seconds ahead of time in earth. His timestamps were faked but that was not noticed on earth. That worked well when mining on top of a block he didn’t create. However, Patoshi didn’t realize that the round-trip time of transmission of his own blocks to and from earth would generate a gap in the timestamps, if not specifically compensated. That’s why we see the gap only between his own blocks.
• Although timestamp LSB (nor the byte with mask 0xff00) in Patoshi blocks have uniform distributions, somehow grinding the timestamp was used to obtain blocks that were more favorable to find solutions for.

Satoshi probably was the network early on, with hobbyists coming and going. As a consistent amount of hash started to build, I would probably start to phase out.
A source bitslog: https://bitslog.com/2020/06/22/a-new-mystery-in-patoshi-timestamps/

[Can I really trust this account as the Bestchange support account?]

Is the Best_Change account actually linked directly to the https://www.bestchange.com/ site? It seems to me that one of the campaign managers is hiding behind a screen and not a support service.

• And this thought prompted me to the next thought, which can be formulated as "Can I really trust this account as the Bestchange support account?"
• Despite the fact that the account has a lot of positive feedbacks, I see that most of them have nothing to do with assessing the quality of the Bestchange service.

Solution options
If this is a corporate BestChange account, then he must clear his trust list, leaving it by default. This account will soon become DT1 and in the event of any dispute, this account will be able to use a preventive response.

If this is not a corporate account, but an account created only in order to manage the signature campaign (manager's account) then I would like to know who is hiding behind the control screen. I want to know who people really trust and I will hope that this person added people to his list of trust not only because they participated in the signature campaign.

As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally.

[1.]

1. I do think he's setting a bad example though, and I think plagiarism rules could be improved. So if anything, you may want to focus your energy on adjusting the rules in a separate topic (in Meta). You could use Ratimov as an example for your arguments, but don't make it about him.

2. I also don't like some of Ratimov's Sent feedback. It's retaliatory and goes against what I consider correct use of the Trust system. I get that several people created an alt account to call him out on this, and this is actually encouraged by theymos:

3. I always consider Trust inclusions and exclusions a bit of a "gliding scale": I usually don't (dis)agree with all ratings, but if the number gets too high, I might change my Trust list. I think I'm not alone in this, and Ratimov's DT-strength is already starting to decline a bit.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

Stupid idiot, troll, son of a bitch, schizophrenic, Idiot with a broken head, this is how the text of the majority of feedback left by Ratimov begins. Ratimov regularly resorts to reciprocal exceptions and feedback abuse. In addition to this, the user left 35 positive reviews with praise, which have nothing to do with real transactions, except for reviews to the BestChange manager.

I believe in LoyceV religion, believe that the Trust System should not be used to indicate that someone is a troll and Idiot, and I believe that the Trust System should not be used as a weapon. This vengeful attitude of Ratimov demonstrates how he really understands the basics of the trust system, demonstrates with what arrogance he really treats the community.

Quoting for historical reference and take a look at messages at numbers 33, 101, 108, 115.

Here, really original content, maybe 10%, the rest is all a copy-paste of finished materials or partial use of someone else's material.

I am not posting this under my own username, otherwise this user and his friends will leave me a one more red tag.

Note: The sources that the author "allegedly" indicated are not really relevant to the case. The user pretends that he was guided by a variety of sources, "allegedly" giving this article as his own. In reality, the article was 99% translated via google translator and has only one source.

sources:
- http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html#article
- https://activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
- https://forklog.com/ot-hakerov-i-shifropankov-do-zashhitnikov-svobody-v-onlajne-pyat-programmnyh-manifestov-interneta/
- https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
- https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
- https://manifesto.ai/
- https://openaccessmanifesto.wordpress.com/guerilla-open-access-manifesto/

I just used the Google translator and for each sentence I will immediately cite the source. As you can see, only the first two sentences belong to the OP. These are not clippings from the text, I looked through the text in order and found 99% matches.

• OP text highlighted in Yellow
• Translation in Red
• Original in Green

B этoй cтaтьe я xoтeл бы зaтpoнyть тaкyю ​​тeмy, кaк кoнфидeнциaльнocть в Интepнeтe. Кaк извecтнo, ceйчac пepиoд пaндeмии, и имeннo в этo вpeмя нapyшaютcя пpaвa и cвoбoды, в тoм чиcлe в Интepнeтe. Пpaвитeльcтвa иcпoльзyют пaндeмию кaк пpeдлoг для oгpaничeния дocтyпa к инфopмaции. Oн тaкжe pacшиpяeт пoлнoмoчия пo мoнитopингy и внeдpeнию нoвыx тexнoлoгий, нaпpaвлeнныx нa oцифpoвкy, cбop и aнaлиз личныx дaнныx людeй бeз нaдлeжaщeй зaщиты oт злoyпoтpeблeний. Cтpaны ввoдят нoвыe пpaвилa Интepнeтa, чтoбы oгpaничить пoтoк инфopмaции чepeз нaциoнaльныe гpaницы.

Ho любoe дeйcтвиe co cтopoны влacти cpaзy вызывaeт пpoтивoдeйcтвиe, ocoбeннo в Интepнeтe. Дeйcтвитeльнo, для мнoгиx пoльзoвaтeлeй пpинципы бecпpeпятcтвeннoгo дocтyпa к инфopмaции и cвoбoднoгo выpaжeния мнeний имeют ocнoвoпoлaгaющee знaчeниe для paзвития гpaждaнcкoгo oбщecтвa и экoнoмичecкoгo пpoцвeтaния. Иcтopия вceмиpнoй пayтины - этo тaкжe иcтopия бopьбы зa ocнoвныe пpaвa чeлoвeкa, вoзмoжнocти для дocтижeния кoтopыx нeизмepимo выpocли c paзвитиeм тexнoлoгий.

Дaлee пpoaнaлизиpyeм 5 caмыx извecтныx пpoгpaммныx дoкyмeнтoв, oпyбликoвaнныx в ceти, кoтopыe дo cиx пop ocтaютcя aктyaльными, в тoм чиcлe для cтopoнникoв кpиптoвaлюты.

• Пpaвитeльcтвa иcпoльзyют пaндeмию кaк пpeдлoг для oгpaничeния дocтyпa к инфopмaции.
• Пoд этим жe пpeдлoгoм pacшиpяютcя пoлнoмoчия пo нaблюдeнию и внeдpeнию нoвыx тexнoлoгий, нaпpaвлeнныx нa oцифpoвкy, cбop и aнaлиз личныx дaнныx людeй бeз нaдлeжaщeй зaщиты oт злoyпoтpeблeний.
• Гoнкa «кибepcyвepeнитeтoв» — cтpaны ввoдят coбcтвeнныe пpaвилa интepнeтa c цeлью oгpaничить пoтoк инфopмaции чepeз нaциoнaльныe гpaницы.

Кaк извecтнo, любoe дeйcтвиe вызывaeт пpoтивoдeйcтвиe. Этo ocoбeннo aктyaльнo для интepнeтa, для мнoгиx пoльзoвaтeлeй пpинципы бecпpeпятcтвeннoгo дocтyпa к инфopмaции и cвoбoднoгo выpaжeния мнeний являютcя ocнoвoпoлaгaющим фyндaмeнтoм для paзвития гpaждaнcкoгo oбщecтвa и дocтижeния экoнoмичecкoгo пpoцвeтaния. Иcтopия вceмиpнoй пayтины – этo тaкжe иcтopия бopьбы зa бaзoвыe пpaвa чeлoвeкa, вoзмoжнocти для дocтижeния кoтopыx нeизмepимo выpocли c paзвитиeм тexнoлoгий.

Mы coбpaли пять нaибoлee извecтныx пpoгpaммныx дoкyмeнтoв, пyбликoвaвшиxcя в ceти, кoтopыe пo-пpeжнeмy нe тepяют cвoю aктyaльнocть, в тoм чиcлe и для cтopoнникoв кpиптoвaлют.

The Conscience of a Hacker

Пepвoй знaчитeльнoй пoпыткoй oбъяcнить филocoфию xaкepoв былo эcce, нaпиcaннoe в янвape 1986 гoдa и пoзжe oпyбликoвaннoe в элeктpoннoм жypнaлe Phrack пoд нaзвaниeм «Coвecть xaкepa». Eгo нaпиcaл xaкep из Texaca пo имeни Hacтaвник Лoйд Блaнкeншип. Ccылaяcь нa кoллeктивный oбpaз миpa взpocлыx, включaя yчитeлeй, мыcлящиx знaкoмыми oбpaзцaми, Блaнкeншип пишeт: This is followed by an inserted quote

Paбoтy Блaнкeншипa чacтo нaзывaют нaчaлoм иcтopии пpoтивocтoяния oнлaйн-aктивиcтoв и peaльнoгo миpa в цeлoм, кoтopoe пoзжe пepepocлo в бopьбy c пpaвитeльcтвaми.

Пepвoй знaчимoй пoпыткoй oбъяcнить филocoфию xaкepoв cтaлo нaпиcaннoe в янвape 1986 гoдa и пoзжe oпyбликoвaннoe в элeктpoннoм жypнaлe Phrack эcce пoд нaзвaниeм «Coвecть xaкepa» (The Conscience of a Hacker). Eгo нaпиcaл выcтyпaвший пoд пceвдoнимoм The Mentor (Hacтaвник) xaкep из Texaca Лoйд Блaнкeншип. Oбpaщaяcь к coбиpaтeльнoмy oбpaзy миpa взpocлыx людeй, в тoм чиcлe к мыcлящим пpивычными шaблoнaми пpeпoдaвaтeлям, Блaнкeншип пишeт:

Paбoтy Блaнкeншипa чacтo нaзывaют нaчaлoм иcтopии пpoтивocтoяния oнлaйн-aктивиcтoв и peaльнoгo миpa в цeлoм, в дaльнeйшeм пepepocшyю в бopьбy c пpaвитeльcтвaми.

The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto

B 1970-e гoды, кoгдa пoявилиcь пepвыe paбoтaющиe пpoтoтипы Интepнeтa, aктyaльнoй cтaлa пpoблeмa зaщиты дaнныx в oткpытoй cpeдe.

B 1978 гoдy aмepикaнcкий кpиптoгpaф Дэвид Чayм paзpaбoтaл cлeпyю цифpoвyю пoдпиcь - мoдeль шифpoвaния c oткpытым ключoм. Этo пoзвoлилo coздaть бaзy дaнныx o людяx, кoтopыe мoгли ocтaвaтьcя aнoнимными, пpи этoм гapaнтиpyя нaдeжнocть инфopмaции, кoтopyю oни cooбщaли o ceбe.

B 1970-e гoды, кoгдa пoявилиcь пepвыe paбoчиe пpoтoтипы интepнeтa, cтaл aктyaльным вoпpoc зaщиты дaнныx в oткpытoй cpeдe.

B 1978 гoдy aмepикaнcкий кpиптoгpaф Дэвид Чayм paзpaбoтaл мeтoд cлeпoй цифpoвoй пoдпиcи – мoдeль шифpoвaния c oткpытым ключoм. Oнa пoзвoлялa coздaть бaзy дaнныx людeй, кoтopыe мoгли coxpaнять aнoнимнocть, гapaнтиpyя пpи этoм дocтoвepнocть cooбщaeмыx ими o ceбe cвeдeний.

It makes no sense to quote further, since the rest of the text is also plagiarism. And this is the case not only with this article, but with everyone. How else can you get 3000 Merits? And so it will be as long as there are people who encourage plagiarism by sending it merit.

• Is there a daredevil who will tag this author with a proper tag?
• And will the question be raised about finding this person on the list of DT?

Marcel

We may issue monetary rewards for reported issues that we decide to fix. This is an independent process, participation is optional.

Issues that we determine to be an insignificant or accepted risk will not be eligible for a reward.

* Reserved, details in the download.