Seems that you and kiklo have more in common, in that you both are completely incapable of quitting the forum when you say you're going to.
I'll help you out, since you seem to be having issues following through. Go to this page, press 'Generate Password' and copy it. Next, go to this page and paste the strong password into the boxes that say 'Choose Password' and 'Verify Password'. After that, enter your current password in the 'Current Password' box. Press the 'Change Profile' button. Finally, press the 'Logout' button and turn off the computer.

Hope I helped. 

Put a starting bid, minimum increment and end date if you want to make an auction. Otherwise, report your post to the mods to move it to Digital Goods.

The same goes with your other auction too.

Do you think that you are in any position to criticize someone on this? Look at your trust page. Do you think that people are fine with your behavior?

Likewise, with the sheer number of rebuttals from myself that you have flat out ignored you are in no place to comment on this.

In fact, I have a suspicion that you have put me on your ignore list for this reason. If you can't see me, I don't exist, right?

---

This is false, but if you genuinely believe that then you only have to do two things to prove it.
1. Call yourself a scammer. Your account and all known alts of yours have received negative trust. If you genuinely believe that negative trust indicates a scammer, then you therefore are one and would have no problem admitting it.
2. Explain why you left these ratings in the past, when these users are not scammers and weren't believed to be.

As far as I'm aware (however I'm sure you'll provide a singular example to prove me wrong), these are hypotheticals. It is very unlikely that the person will not try to defend themselves, and if proper proof is provided I trust that Lauda will remove or replace the negative trust with something more suiting for the situation.

Provide examples of this.

In this case it is important to keep both in mind.

And I agree with you. However, your implementation is flawed in my opinion.

Firstly, the idiots are not those who misunderstand what the forum shows. People believe that negative trust makes people a scammer, when this is not the case. However, assuming as such does not make them an idiot, simply misinformed. The idiots are those who do not take proper care to secure their accounts and therefore pay the price.

Secondly, I don't agree that it would be better. By potentially conditioning people to be scared of every link they press we are not helping the matter. Rather than checking the link themselves, they will automatically assume that every link is evil and they do not click on it.
So, with this, what happens when the same user realizes not every link is evil? Have they learned to check the link before clicking it, or have they been shown that every link is of the same standard (evil)? If the latter, why would this change when they believe that every link isn't evil?
By making every outgoing link look evil we aren't solving anything, rather putting off the issue until people have more to lose. By having a page that says 'This link is not an official Bitcointalk link. Be sure that you trust it before entering any personal information.', we are not conditioning people to be scared, rather to second check where they are putting their information into. However, this implementation brings it's own issues which I mentioned earlier.

While this may be a concern during implementation, I personally couldn't care less about theymos' (or the site's) advertising revenue. I also fail to see how your second point is a negative.

And what will we be educating to them? That every link not on Bitcointalk is evil? I don't think that's a particularly good message.

Regarding the insulting, I am a firm believer that realizing your mistake is the best way to not do it again. While it may be kicking them when they're down and not the nicest thing to do, if you allow your account to be hacked you are an idiot and you should be told that. While I understand it is not your point, telling them that 'it could happen to anyone' or something similar doesn't help them realize their mistake. No one likes to be called an idiot, and it is likely that people would do what they can to avoid it. If they are an idiot for allowing their account to be compromised, then they will likely do what they can to not do that again.

It should also be kept in mind that these are all just my personal feelings though, so I may be incorrect. I'm not a psychologist.

---

It's getting late; I'll reply in the morning.

I disagree. If idiots don't check the URL then they won't check if the link colour is red. It would also be semi-scare mongering; not every link not on the domain bitcointalk.org is dangerous. Colouring them in red makes it seem as such.

The best way to go about it would be something similar to what hilariousandco suggested:
but doing this would take away resources from a forum that has already had to have it's functionality cut back to run properly.

---

cough.

Why? If people bruteforce Minecraft accounts, why wouldn't they with accounts that could make them hundreds-millions of dollars?

This guy was pretty adamant that it wasn't his fault, if he would fit into either of those.

Because they make new accounts, since their old ones have been hacked.

Because there is a template to follow (sorta). There aren't many ways you can jazz up 'My account has been hacked can I have my password reset'.

They were hashed using 7500 rounds of sha256crypt, but if the password is weak then this will be broken eventually.

I don't know about most, but some most certainly.

It makes a few million years of a difference what the password is. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Good. I should hope not.

Because they don't use the site. They get a 'random' string of characters and hash it with 7500 rounds until the hashes match.* If they do, then that string is most likely the password. You don't need to even be connected to the internet to do that.

*It's not quite that simple, but it's essentially how it works.

theymos told people to change their passwords to something strong. There is nothing more that he can do without an upgrade to the forum software.

That is feedback that Lauda has given to other users, not feedback they have recieved. Notice how the name 'Lauda' doesn't appear in your quote?

E: Oh, you deleted your post. Whoopsie-doodles.

I must say that I agree. I certainly don't think it would be the be all and end all in terms of signature spam, but allowing people to make shitty posts without it affecting the rest of the forum certainly sounds like it would help.

Unfortunately I don't think that this would help too much. People could simply farm up accounts or buy them in order to get in, and with little supervision it would be easy for them to do so. This would be the main issue of a board such as that IMO.

I don't get involved with shitty ICOs, so there is nothing to find. I think it was just another one of his hilarious quips.

---

Don't worry, I was only playing with him. My heart is only for you, Clyde. <3

Love you too, sweetheart.

Woe is me. I can't believe that instead of flipping burgers for minimum wage, I can code and play video games all day while enjoying myself. What a shit life I lead.

It took me probably about 2 minutes from finding the image to posting it here. However, from what I can see it seems you're lacking in some departments, so I can see why it could take you longer.

"I made something shitty in under a minute, I'm so cool!"

I've actually suggested that people don't use the forum as a job in the past. Believe it or not, I am also a person. Try to keep up.

If that's what I'm classed as, I would hate to hear your self reflection.

I'll be sure to pass on your feelings.

Ouch, you sure got me.

In that case, it makes things even funnier.

---

I've had my fun. I'll leave you guys to take over with this bag o' laughs.

Lutpin has never said seriously that he is from Austria. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Certainly. It also lets people like yourself escape being bullied by the big kids IRL and allows feel like you're actually a big man for once.
What a wonderful invention the internet is.

I don't. Care to refresh my memory?

You're funny. The sad thing is that I can't even tell if you're trying to be.


You probably have no idea how lame you sound right now.

Then stop joining shitty ICOs and supporting their existence here. This goes for both any bounties/campaigns they have and the ICOs themselves.

Disgusting.

Thank you for your incredible insight. Please, don't go any more in depth with what you think is wrong here.

I was going to suggest this, but it would be impossible to do for all users. By caching server side, you could only cache one certain trust list configuration and therefore the trust scores would be inaccurate for a large portion of those who actively use the system to it's full potential.

---

It would still have to perform the same calculations it was previously, it would just be outputting less information with it. It'd be the worst of both worlds.

---

Perhaps a solution could be that the trust scores would be hidden by default (as they are currently) with an expand arrow. Once the arrow is pressed, a request is sent to the server and that user's trust score is calculated and outputted. This would allow trust pages to be loaded quickly and would likely keep server load low, but could also allow for more in-depth analysis easily.

From what I understand, it was a private deal between Lutpin and mexxer. Hence, there is no reference to be given.

Yes.

Blazed.

IMO a person's activity nor trust rating is relevant when trying to find if they should stay in DT, not unless someone else on DT is willing to go through each of the ratings that person has left and replace them. By removing people like mexxer (and also users like xetsr) from DT because of a scam, you would be opening the doors for previously tagged scammers to come back and try again.

This is completely false. By using automated translation tools to translate into languages like Japanese you are providing a sub-par translation. By doing what he is doing, he is giving a sub-par product and trying to take payment for it. That is a scam.

Regardless however, negative trust does not make you a scammer.

If the original owner was put onto DT and/or received trust on the forum, then only the original owner should be allowed to keep these things in tact. If the account has changed hands, it is no longer under the person that was added to DT in the first place and is therefore not fit to be on there (unless proven otherwise). The same applies for trust.

I honestly have no idea who you're replying to here. It appears that you've already been contacted. Have you not?

Amount scammed is irrelevant.

I'll bet you have a really big dick too.

It's pretty funny how you say that people are acting like kids, then go on to say something so insanely immature.

---

Get a grip and deal with your own problems like an adult, rather than running away and getting others to try and follow up on something you should have done in the first place. If you have loaded your coins then prove it, rather than telling people to 'get the police to come and visit you', and if you haven't then you should do so immediately.

There was a case against defcon23 that wasn't really anything, mainly just defcon and Quickseller coming together to mutually talk bad of the incident. It's also important to note that both defcon and Quickseller are blackmailers/extortionists themselves, so it is the pots calling the kettle black at best.

I also think you may have been around for it, however I may be wrong - here is the link.

If I may ask, why don't you have your way?

I don't think that this proposal is something controversial, especially considering that these campaigns are incentivising people to break the rules of the forum.
When those of a higher power have shown by lack of action that they couldn't care less about this, does it not then fall to the responsibility of the next in power (yourself and other global moderators/staff members) to take action?