I left you feedback before the allegation you make that it was one account managed by many people, which sounds to me rather like an argument made against the way my brain works recently, which turned out to be false.


I am going to think it over.

Edited: I have changed the feedback temporarily to neutral (it could stay permanently like this).


As I see it, the trust system is useless if you have to have irrefutable evidence, because by then it will be too late. We are not talking about murder cases.


It seems to me that you are unclear about the difference in the weight of evidence to be had between criminal cases and civil cases. For criminal cases, the evidence asked for is much higher than for civil cases, and to me the cases we deal with here are more like civil cases.

What is the Standard of Guilt in Civil Cases?


When I red tag someone, I assign a probability (which I recognize is subjective) of at least 90%, higher than in civil cases.

Let me point this out NotATether:


A law can be made to prohibit them, and although this is a small country, I would not like other states to copy the idea, because even though P2P transactions cannot be stopped, they can be reduced to marginality. We are in a global trend of reducing the use of cash, mostly voluntarily by the population and the upcoming launch of CBDCs that mean a step further in the total control.

The legislation underway in the European Union is going in the same direction, and this type of legislation is not going helpful for us.


Again, they can.


Of course.

I am open to changing any of my feedbacks and I wanted to open this thread because of what I have had to read about the last one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=239997



As far as I know, there are two types of cases where DTs disagree.

1. That of the newbies who ask for a loan in the lending section without offering collateral.
2. That of purchased accounts.

So I understand that, although not all DTs have the same opinion, it is legitimate to leave a negative tag for an account that has obviously changed hands.

Well, I had to read this today:


Happy? I find it pretty boring, actually.

This is coming from a person who had the same reaction in this case:

martyins

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1114408


This forum is full of people who break the rules, who buy accounts that make ban evasion, who have alts in the same campaign, of which surely we do not discover even half, and when we discover someone and they are left red tags, as in the case of martyins and this one you have to come out with conspiracies that even you don't believe.

All this when negative feedback means less than ever as we can see nowadays quite a few cases of people with negative feedback participating in paid signature campaigns.

Let this thread serve to question my feedbacks, I will not hesitate to change them if I see weighty arguments or a consensus of DTs to say they are wrong.

I think it's a good idea. Accounts that have changed hands as from February 2018 should be red tagged, while in the previous ones it should not be an amnesty in my opinion, but see each case.

Well, I don't know, I was sure there was nothing, but now I see the untrusted feedback, I guess it was a mistake of mine.

So, we have several untrusted feedback and the only one that has a reference dates back 9 years, accusation of which rby has defended himself although I don't know how well. I would tag him for the account having changed hands but not for that past event that I do not have the information to evaluate but since we are debating it, I will wait to decide whether to tag him or not.


I don't know where you got that nonsense from. My friend has nothing to do with what nutildah and I are discussing here.

If I arrive following my plan, I will arrive so slowly that I will hardly notice any change from the previous situation.

What I will do is to continue working, maybe less, maybe in other things, but I think it is important if you have a lot of money to have your head occupied in productive things and not simply to have a lot of free time and a lot of money, which is what happens to those who win the lottery and usually ends badly.

Of the money I earn, part I donate, part I spend and part I save/invest. Being financially free, I believe that I will increase the level of spending moderately and the level of donation will increase considerably. The savings/investment will remain similar or less because the snowball will already be big enough to produce considerable income rolling in on its own even if I don't contribute more.

In general, debt addiction goes with our times, with the culture of immediacy and "buy now and pay later".

I would say that the best remedy is financial education in general and in general finance in particular, but someone who is already addicted to debt has to hit rock bottom before willingly starting a personal finance plan.

Controlling expenses and income, budgeting, saving for an emergency fund, reducing debt and investing are steps that eventually take one from a stressful financial situation to financial peace.

As noted above, the answer to the question depends on several factors, especially one's particular situation and the reasons for buying.

Generally speaking, I would say that we should never sell or spend all of our Bitcoin. In general, unless you have a lot of money to buy an amount that you consider sufficient, it is normal to accumulate little by little, doing DCA or any of its variants, and in bull markets you can take advantage to make profits and enjoy them, but keeping the global perspective in accumulating the best tool for economic improvement that we have at our disposal.

I am getting lost here, if you are referring to rby.


On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it, and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter.

The only thing that by reading again the insinuation that he could be another of the alts managed by naim027, in this case with a purchased account, is raising my tagging agressivity by the minute.


I don't see anything in that link, in his trust profile I don't even see untrusted feedback.

There are two concepts that have been pointed out in the thread but not made explicit, one is tax evasion and the other is tax avoidance. The first consists of not paying taxes to which you are obliged, thus committing a crime or misdemeanor, depending on the jurisdiction and amount. The other is to take advantage of legal loopholes to pay as little tax as possible.

I do not even discuss tax avoidance morally. It is legal, period. As for tax evasion, one can be a very good person and be fed up with being robbed of taxes from all sides and not seeing those taxes reflected in public services, or one can be a mafioso who evades taxes. So I would not base the judgment of whether one is a good or bad person on that.

Without knowing the details of the bill, in principle I see it as positive too, although I suppose that the bitcoin purists will not like more regulation and state control on the subject.

As far as shitcoins are concerned, I believe that such control is necessary, and whoever wants to escape state control with bitcoin has the means to do so.

Too bad that every now and then cases like this appear. I hope that despite the financial damage the lending business will continue to be profitable for you, as there were people in the past who were in the business and left it precisely because the defaults left them in losses or with so little profit in total that it was not worth all the work.

Flag supported btw.

How are you going to know that? The only two pieces of information you give are negative, the second less negative than the first, but I don't know if he a scammer or not. Besides, I don't think we're going to see the case you raise because the person who had the account before will have enough red tags and people will have no reason to remove them if they left them in his profile in the first place. If the new owner is "only" a shitposter, do we have to remove the red tags? I don't see it. Besides, if he gets to join a signature campaign it will be 1xbit's. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.


The problem with the thread you link to, as with account sale cases in general, is that when you start to dig in you find that it was just the tip of the iceberg and there was a lot more shit going on underneath.

yahoo62278 opened that thread because he and others felt some empathy towards martyns and his sobbing story, so common in these cases, but in the end it turned out that it was not only a bought account but that behind it there was ban evading and participation in the 1xBit campaign that we know of, and there are many things that we did not discover in this and other cases.

naim027 at the time also generated a lot of empathy, and many of us fell into the trap, I was one of them, and look how the story ended.

That after a couple of days and a couple of pages of thread, the OP has not given any response gives me the feeling that he wrote more to meet his post quota than out of an honest intention to debate the issue. It pisses me off because the topic of personal finance, and the emergency fund discussed here is of special interest to me, and the OP should have some interaction with the responses, although seeing the banality of the question he posed, I'm not really surprised either.

Everyone should have a second chance, but in the case of businesses it should be accompanied by clear changes such as changes in the top management. In any case, to do business with a centralized exchange you should be very careful in general, even if the exchange has not gone bankrupt (yet, lol).

Yes, but in the eyes of an outside observer it would work as a casino, no? I mean that many casinos have an anti-mixing policy with wagering requirements, because if there are no wagering requirements, I deposit now in a casino and make a withdrawal within an hour and the track of my Bitcoin is lost to the eyes of an outside observer, although obviously before the casino I have no privacy.

It is not as good as a mixer but it can be used to make people lose track of you in some cases.

My take on this is that this has been discussed ad nauseam on the forum and my opinion on it has not changed. Bitcoin is more on its way to becoming a global store of value than a global currency, mainly because of Gresham's law and the problem of scalability in payments that neither the blockchain nor the second layer solutions existing today could sustain if it had to handle as many payments as are made in dollars today.


Basically something like the dollar today, which is not only used in the USA, but also in other countries that do not issue it, as well as for many international payments such as commodities.

I also think so.

As far as drama is concerned, I think there will be little. The only thing is that until after halving and even when we are in the bull market there will be ups and downs, small dramas I would say. But the real drama would be for example that next cycle we do not have a bull market, that the price does not exceed the $69K of this cycle. Things like that, which are very unlikely to happen, but if they did happen they would be a real drama.

I think it is most likely that once it is launched the price will go up, now in the mid and long term I am not clear if it can add volatility because just as a lot of money can come into the Bitcoin market in a derivative way, it can also go out.


Well, it doesn't have to happen that way this time, but we shouldn't be surprised if it does. That's why I am not sure if it's going to be bullish in the long run.

Well, I have John Abraham, I mean naim027, on ignore and since this is supposedly about a hypothetical, though very unlikely, incorrectness of my feedback, I have temporarily removed him from ignore to see what he says:


You are off to a bad start.


You keep on the bad track.


It's not that you don't have. It's just that you don't.


Garbage.


Anger? Rather boredom.


So why are you talking?

I am putting you back on ignore forever.