Signature limitations is likely one of the reasons, as it's very difficult to make an eye catching signature with the limitations imposed on 'Member' accounts and lower. Another could be that members who make insubstantial posts, such as yourself, simply for signature payment are more condensed to members with the rank 'Member' or below; they usually get banned before they reach any higher.

You should have posted well from the beginning. Why did you think that copy-pasting posts when you have a signature and avatar campaign was acceptable?
Just for reference though, I think that 'No copy-pasting posts' should be added to the rule list, so people can't complain that they didn't know if they get banned for it.

If there is no time stated on the ban message when you log in then it means you are banned permanently. If this is the case, do not try to post again on any account outside of Meta or said account will also be banned.
Otherwise, the time stated on the message is the time you are banned for.

Land of Bitcoin's owner has been AWOL for at least a year (likely going up for 2 soon enough) and the website has been down since last year. You might want to try and find what you're looking for elsewhere.

In a database leak secret questions were leaked. Even though they were hashed they could easily be cracked and could lead to a lot of accounts being compromised.
Hense, theymos had anyone using the secret question feature's account locked automatically to stop it becoming a problem.

I'll keep it on pending due to some of the higher ranked members distrusting the service and the majority of the vouches being done by newbies. We'll see in a week or so perhaps.

No, these bots don't target Bitcointalk users. I have recieved these messages before in addition to people in other communities I'm a part of. The bots poll random names and try to find one that replies to them so they can sell their service.
Just block them when you come across them.

Trying to determine whether things are legal or not by the logic of "It's too good to be true" doesn't work. Let's use BiPolarBob for example. He gives out completely legitimate giftcards for free or a fraction of the price; all of the nice things he has done would have made him a prime target to be a 'scammer' by your logic, rather than being praised. Sometimes deals are too good to be true, despite being legitimate.

As has been said earlier, the reason these items/deals still exist is due to there being a market for them. If you educate people on the risks of such deals rather than moaning about it here you would probably get more done towards your goal. Remove the demand and the people selling will reduce.

They still are classed as scams by the community most of the times. The staff don't moderate scams, and they aren't about to start.

Unless you're the one carding them, the cops wouldn't be interested in you for having a carded account.

If you store anything of financial benefit in plain text on a forum's personal messaging system, you should really rethink your security practices.

Either way this is off topic, so I'm going to stop here.

And what exactly would they be looking for? I can't think of anything that they could get by just looking at someone's account, unless said person decides it's a good idea to store Private Keys in their PMs or something similar.

Imo this shouldn't be needed. As long as you use a strong password, don't put it in any sites other than here and keep your computer malware free there should be no need to worry about who is in your account; there will be no one else. Also, do you think that if someone managed to get into your account they wouldn't just change your details to stop you getting back into it (meaning you couldn't check the IP logs of your account)?

I have added these two to the main list. Thanks for the reports.

Added to Pending, if you can provide a Scam Accusation thread I'll move it to the main list.

These two are already on the list. Please read before posting.

Also:

It's likely just a mirror site for if bitcointalk is blocked by different countries/ISPs. There are several of the same sort of thing around the web. As previously said I wouldn't recommend logging in, but using it for viewing purposes is completely fine.

Yes it does? Right at the bottom of the page under the email address:


It is also fine to use for difficulty purposes, however anything else on the site should not be considered with this service. This is due to the prices being higher on that website however with a shorter delivery time. I can't say I would recommend using that site for vanity address creation, however I can't see anything glaringly wrong with it.

This would depend on how in-depth you wanted to go with it. If you wanted, for example, referral payments to always be sent by a certain service and only main payments to be variable you could do something similar to this:
First add the new library file to your main index.php as I said in my last post in addition to require_once('libs/faucetbox.php'); on line 93 for each different payment processor you would like to add.
Next, in your template's index.php file you could add a checkbox below the captcha (at line 174 in the default file) with some code similar to this:
For example.
You could then, back in the main index.php of your faucet at line 2310 add some code like this:
With as many different processors as you like.

If you wanted the user to be able to choose which processor they wanted to use for referral payouts you would likely have to add a new column to your users SQL table and query that in order to get which payout processor to use. This would require a lot more effort and would probably have to be a paid job rather than something I can post on the forum.

To add different payment options to the faucet you would just have to change the libraries and functions used in the script.
First add the new PHP library to your /libs folder. Then in your index.php, change the require_once('libs/faucetbox.php'); (line 93) to the PHP lib you added earlier then it will stop using the FaucetBox API. You can then edit the lines at 2310, 2313 and 3242 to the send payment functions in your new library. After editing these lines all that would be left would be aesthetics I believe, such as the messages found at 2347 displaying payout details and getting the correct balance from your chosen API.
If you still have trouble then you can make another post, but I don't think this thread is the most appropriate due to it being FaucetBOX.com discussion.

CSS and JS are both very easy languages to learn if you know how to use HTML, especially if you learn JQuery alongside. I don't think you should be running a website if you're not willing to learn at least the basics of these languages, in addition to PHP.

If it's returning as a boolean it probably means that it is returning false meaning that there is either an error in your database connection or the query you are trying to do. Try doing echo mysqli_error($conn); and see if it returns anything that may help you figure out the problem.
You should probably implement some sort of error reporting to your script next time, something as simple as this would probably suffice:

You should also be using Prepared Statements to secure your app if you do any MySQLi queries with user input, but that is another matter for another time.

Going off of the thread linked in the reference people seem still to be having troubles with being rewarded and such as of fairly recently so right now I'm fairly inclined to still put it on the list, though it was on the original list that I reposted. I've done what mexxer suggested for now:

Go for it. If people reply giving good criticism mostly I'll consider removing it from the list.

I'll add it to pending, since right now it does seem a bit suspect in my opinion (To PayPal, 0.5BTC minimum). If you can provide a scam accusation thread I will move it to the main list.

I sent theymos a PM requesting it to be stickied the night prior, so that is why I went with theymos. If I am wrong, then thank you to the corresponding staff member!

From what I can gather from the feedback he left on dooglus and others on the same day, it isn't that BAC doesn't trust dooglus it's that he doesn't like Clam. Therefore, he negative trusted some of the largest players involved (doog, SuperClam and xploited) to try and bring down the reputation of the coin. There is literally nothing negative said about dooglus in the feedback other than "he switched the site to a coin i dont like anymore and got a lot of it". Who knows, if he gets tired of Bitcoin he might leave satoshi a neg for owning a lot of BTC.
Personally I don't think that BAC should be on DT for this reason, though that obviously isn't my decision to make.

Unless he continued endorsing them after they began scamming, I can't really see why that is entirely his fault. In the case of inputs, it was promoted by a lot of large websites and ran by someone previously extremely trusted in the Bitcoin community; I don't see it as particularly fair to target dooglus for this without mentioning the other people involved.

Do you have an example of this? I can't say I've ever really heard it before.

Now where did I put my tinfoil hat...

I expect you were seen as trolling due to your unwillingness to accept when you were given valid explanations as to why theymos spent the money on what he did, and gave vague explanations as to what you were talking about expecting others to understand when they questioned what you meant.
You were probably nuked due to ban evasion, though I'm not sure that this is too fair. In the means of as little censorship as possible I think the thread should have stayed up regardless. Also am I wrong or have previous ban evaders not been nuked (E.G karlb187), simply had their new accounts banned in addition to their old ones?