Who is this "everybody" that you are referring to?

I certainly do not agree with that statement, so you are proven wrong. Again. 

I don't see the link between those two traits. Someone can be 'honest' and 'gullible' (or overly trusting) at the same time. Likewise, someone can be completely dishonest, but be a good judge of character.

Just because you would not cheat someone, that does not necessarily make you any better or worse at judging whether the next guy would or would not cheat someone.

How did this whole "You didn't answer my question! Yes I did!" stuff start?

As far as I can tell, the full original (unedited) post from Suchmoon displays as


Suchmoon simply quoted your questions and then gave a direct "no and no" answer.

From the perspective of a 'popcorn munching observer', it was fairly obvious that Suchmoon believes both your rating and Vod's ratings are "not valid". (And that yourself, Vod and Og need to try being adults for 5 minutes). There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity that I can see.

I'll go sit in the corner quietly now. As you were.

I didn't claim it was on topic.

No. That just simply isn't true. I left out the irrelevant bits. Also, I didn't claim that your post was off topic. Maybe try reading more and smashing your keyboard less. I said it was against your own local rule. Which clearly said 'no personal insults'. You then proceeded to do exactly that. Scream personal insults, without corroborating evidence. Unless you have some evidence stashed away to prove that nutildah lives in a "turd world dump" and has "failed with women and financial success in the 1st world."? In which case, you should have posted it to corroborate your personal insults. Without the evidence, it is against your own local rule. Like I said.

I'm not. I was pointing out that in your own thread, with your own rules, that you can't follow them. Also, you are over doing the whole "permitted flow" thing, like you did previously with "observable instances". Might want to mix it up a bit. Expand your vocabulary. Have some fun with it.

He tried to blackmail eddie13 in public and rightly got removed from DT after demonstrating such poor judgement. So, what exactly is the issue now?

Also, is it actually blackmail if it is done in public? or is it just threatening behaviour because you have already revealed the "bad stuff" to the public so there isn't that threat to reveal anymore? Genuine question.

Agree, the conversation regarding "free speech" belongs in a different thread. That is not the point of this poll as far as I can tell. With regards to the user in question, I would vote for ban, not nuke. No need to remove all evidence they ever existed. But I believe a ban is indeed warranted for multiple reasons. Ban evasion/Trust and Flag Abuse/Trolling.

Sadly, newbies can't vote. Probably to prevent poll gaming by signing up multiple alts. I'll have a word with the puppet master.

You can't even follow your own rules, and you wonder why your posts get deleted from other threads.

You have not established anything relevant. Simply saying "That is completely incorrect", does not actually make it so.


Your continued 'Whataboutism' is very much off-topic.

OP is upset that various users have tagged/flagged their account. Various users explain it is for plagiarism and that they've been identified as a possible ban evader.

You then cry "but what about Lauda, tman, nutildah and their abuse?", then go on another long winded rant and then throw in "but what about the ChiBitCTy plagiarism case??" to finish.  While ignoring or attempting to gloss over the fact that the OP is a plagiarist.

As mentioned previously, you have multiple threads about Lauda, tman, nutildah et al. to discuss them and what you perceive to be their abuse of all and sundry and if you would like to discuss the ChiBitCTy case, perhaps open a thread about that. Although, I'm fairly sure that it was already discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114253.20


Now, having established that, do you now understand "how the fuck your post is off topic and irrelevant" to that thread?

Because you aren't discussing the plagiarism of that user at all (or the fact that they appear to be evading a ban with an alt account).

You are basically talking about every user EXCEPT the one the thread is aimed at. As usual, you're commenting in a post that has NOTHING to do with the DT members and yet, the bulk of your post is regarding DT members.

Simply throwing the word 'plagiarism' into your post a couple of times, does NOT magically make it 'on-top'.


See, you don't care about the alleged plagiarism at all (and I doubt you even looked at the posts). You are just wanting to bang your 'DT are all corrupt trust abusers' drum. You have plenty of other threads (that you have started) for that purpose.

BTW, copying guidesplagiarism to farm merit to rank up to participate in bounties and campaigns IS 'direct financial gain'


Wasn't me, but I would have if I had seen it in time.

Mate, if I had some merit, I'd give you some for that post. Brilliant.

However, I am having some issues checking the digital signature on that picture. You said it was signed by Satoshi, but Craig Wright's PGP key isn't working!

Not only is it not necessary, it is against the rules.

It seems I have "won" 3 flags. If only this was a game of "Capture The Flag"!   All these flags link to the same (locked) post in "off-topic". Which obviously has no facts or evidence of anything.

And apparently I am a "defamator, troll".

Because my posts keep getting deleted from BitcoinSV's thread for being "off-top"

---

Speaking of "rulebreakers":
Need to see actual evidence for Type-2 and Type-3 flag to support it. The reference link used is NOT in a topic started by you as required by flag creation rules. It is a thread created by "the-one-above-all". Unless you are alt of "the-one-above-all", then it is an invalid reference and cannot be used to support the flags regarding nutildah.

@BitcoinSV, can you provide any evidence to prove that nutildah broke a contract with you that resulted in damages?

If not, then you lied while creating the flag and you have no honor, sir!

---

BitcoinSV has also created Type-2 and Type-3 flags against:
nullius: Type-2 and Type-3
DooMAD: Type-2 and Type-3
MagicByt3: Type-2 and Type-3
blurryeyed: Type-2 and Type-3
dragonvslinux: Type-2 and Type-3
shinohai: Type-2 and Type-3

all of which reference this single thread (archived here, which does not accurately nor completely describe ANY of the supposed contracts that were violated.

---

In fact, all the Type-2 and Type-3 flags raised by BitcoinSV have invalid references that do not provide any details of any contracts or instances of contract violation that relate to BitcoinSV. They are all vexatious and invalid.

Is this sort of flagrant disregard for the rules of flag creation and obvious flag abuse grounds for a ban?

Apparently it isn't obvious.

Because you're wrong. On both counts. The first one was after posting about nutildah, the second was following a spray at Lauda (but was questioning the-one-above-all's ongoing use of low brow, child like derogatory nicknames for various users on this forum) and the third was after a rant about nullius. If I remember my numbers correctly, that makes 1 out of 5.

So, for the record. Not Lauda.

Waffling retard, lots of words. This reminds me of someone 

Seriously mate, just fuck off. You have been saying the same things (aka "net negative moronic spew") for months and months and have achieved precisely ZERO. If your account and all of it's posts were "reset", that would probably have more of a "net positive" effect on this board than anything you have suggested since your arrival.

No, but your relentless use of playground-level, derogatory nicknames is. As is the continual banging on the "sig spamming for bitcoin dust" drum. Just because a user has something in their sig space for which they may be receiving compensation, it does not automatically make the contents of their post or their opinion invalid, just as the reverse is true.

Are we going to get anything new for 2020? "New Year, New You" perchance? Or is it just going to be the same old, same old repeated ad nauseam?

That pretty much makes zero sense.

You're saying that the only reason this "public" mixer exists is so they can get people to make mistakes so they can keep the money and make profit that way so they can declare tax because they can't declare tax on and/or use the money from their private mixing?

Maybe next time, just try using this: http://programmingexcuses.com/

It'll probably make more sense.


I would certainly hope that this isn't the actual reason why the OP is being so stubborn and belligerent...


@Atobmixer, you might want to find a better cheerleader

Is it really that difficult to implement basic address validation? Instead of simply putting all the onus on the user to ensure everything is 100% correct, shouldn't (wouldn't?) a "professional" want to try to mitigate the risks and make things as easy and "safe" as possible for the end user?

Almost all decent services (mixers, exchanges, gambling sites etc) have some sort of basic address validation to prevent users from entering an "invalid" address. Note that this is a completely different scenario to a "wrong" address, which could be caused by copy/paste virus or the user copying from the wrong wallet etc. You can't easily protect against that. You can however easily stop a user entering "thisISMyBitcoinAddress" in a bitcoin address field!

However, I can type whatever I want in the box, "gfhfghjgffghgfhfghdh" and then when I try to mix I see:


So, it would seem that a user can't even double check that the address has been entered correctly before sending money. Is there a way that the user can do a last minute double check what address(es) the coins will be sent to before sending money? Or is it only after sending that they get a letter of guarantee etc?


Also, I'm not sure I would personally trust a business owner who conducts their business while high:

I don't have anything against recreational drug use, but it doesn't give me confidence that the business is being run in a professional manner. Much like Elon Musk smoking up. It's bad "optics". Best of luck with your mixing service, and I hope you consider some of the very good recommendations that have already been made. I like Eddie's idea of a signed receipt. Using a signed message from a publicly staked address that states the addresses entered would be good.

So, tell us again why YOU haven't tagged them?