I would commission some well-respected and known crypto collectibles manufacturer to make such a coin & all the things related to it, or maybe a group of 2-3. Also, I would not limit it under 1000 pieces. I would see a pre-loaded coin as much nicer than an unloaded or non-holo coin, even though that includes its own problems.

Of course a non-coin collectible could be nice... But costs may increase a lot, etc. Maybe some sort of an unique artwork divided in even pieces? All in all, I think a simple approach yields better outcome.

The same applies for outside the forums, so not very forum/community-specific issue.


I guess that people generally understand "trust system" to be quite a strong indicator, when coming out of nowhere to deal with total randomers. See a red score, and you'll just move elsewhere. I think trying to improve or change the way people understand what is the intention of having trust system is a too big battle... People naturally weigh a lot on such things. Pretty complicated stuff.


Someone would need to make a proper analysis of the effects/consequences of having had the trust system here. For sure, it has increased drama and wasted loads of time, in addition to increasing bad blood around the active community of BCT. I think it largely boils down to having communication problems, misunderstandings and so on. People have different views (but still probably same goals) and (almost always) too little information to form a proper model of what someone else is meaning/arguing/thinking for real when they say something. Especially over the internet emotions play a large role, too. And there are no real consequences, so no real incentives to do everything as well as possible. People naturally form exaggerated views of others (for good and for bad), as all they see of someone else is text. These are somewhat studied subjects.
And of course accounts change hands, people change, trust system gets gamed, DT gets gamed, general misuse of trust system happens, people have different intentions when they rate someone from how the reader of the rating reads/understands it, etc.

So do the good stuff of this system outweigh downsides? It would be interesting to see an analysis about this, with some semi-objective measurements and argumentation and so on.

Btw, I think it's also worth noting that most of the users of these forums do not know or care at all about the trust system.

Yes, you should update.

My guess is that most of empty wallet buyers are buying them to sell the airdropped tokens (that not all people know of). Now when OP wants unlinked wallets, that makes me think that OP wants the private information specifically that these old wallets carry.... :/

In any case, nobody should sell their private keys etc., unless you know extremely well what you're doing. It's bad for security & privacy (for you and others) and generally not worth it at all.

I'm also interested in this.

Does the OP care if airdropped coins have been sold or not?

A similar site/attempt was made for United Bitcoin which was malware. So beware, this is likely malware.

There's a reason they wanted 'user' to post and keep the thread. The deal included this for that reason. Now how much % of the payment is for for posting & keeping the thread?

I would consider the received money to be only in users possession (i.e. not owned), until the work is completed. As the work is not going to be completed, and it's not a force majeure situation or anything like that, then full payment shouldn't be accepted. Regardless of whether the received funds would be kept or donated, it's still accepted money and it shouldn't be accepted in the first place. On the other hand user would then need to send money to the scammers. I would keep these two things separate and treat the received money as something you shouldn't have been sent at all.

So.. I would separate these two things: that they're scammers and that the user has a work contract/deal with them. I would seek to communicate and do a partial refund for the work not yet done, and keep or donate the rest to charity. It's a moral choice between sending money back to scammers and scamming the scammers (=not completing the work but still taking all the money). There's no correct answer. Also I would be very careful to be extremely sure that they are absolutely scammers. To make this easier, I would highlight the idea that the money is not user's until the work is done, and it could be in anyone's possession currently.

I'm pretty sure I'm stuck at the same step as you.

Oh damn, yes, it's a typo. A zero is missing. My bid was intended to be a 0.005 increase to greenplastics bid, so 0.025.

Thanks guys for noticing this.

My point is that this new DT perceived trustworthiness is better aligned with real trustworthiness. (Regardless of real trustworthiness being low or high).

An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust, not too well aligned with reality. There had been many scammers in the DT, so how trustable was it after all? So many reasons why relying solely on DT was and remains to be a bad idea.
It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea, but DT still has use cases due to this forums nature of e.g. not moderating scams.

Edit: reworded etc.

0.205 0.025

They're on DT1 by the algo, but excluded by the live (so can change any time) inclusions/exclusions system.

Try to not take that DT position too heavily.

You can't truly judge people properly based on a couple of messages in the Internet. I am not too fond of placing strong ratings, positive or negative, especially based on nothing but messages. Something like person's judgement or trustworthiness cannot be properly evaluated based on a couple of messages here and there. People may talk on different context levels or have other kind of communication problems, etc., misunderstandings happen all the time. Cultural differences, language barriers, different values, different moods... etc..

Congrats!

Thanks to all the bidders.

Yes.

Current highest bid of 0.775 BTC by bavicrypto.

Auction ends 30 minutes after last bid. Right now auction would be ending at 22:00:40 GMT.

I'm sorry for the caused inconvenience. I do understand that some wallet setups may not be accessible in such a short notice.
That being said, I do think it was a fair call to discard your bid, because you have no history here. The common practice in these cases is to ask for a safety deposit.
There have been cases here where new non-established members, members without history, have trolled and even wrecked auctions by bidding and not honoring bids. It would have been unfair to other bidders to let you bid without a safety deposit due to that. I do think that you're a legitimate member. It's just that certain status or safety deposit is required to make auctions fair for everyone.

You are right that auction rules do not state anything about safety deposits. But as Lauda mentioned, it's kind of a common practice around here to ask newbies to provide safety deposit. I'll be having this notice in my future auctions. Also, I should've mentioned this to you earlier, but it simply didn't cross my mind, and I'm sorry for that. I hope we'll see you participating in future auctions.

Amount is 0.021 BTC, I cover untracked shipping. Payment address PM'd. Thank you.

This crossed my mind also. That bid by greenplastic could have been kept valid, but it was on top of an invalid bid, so was lowered to a minimum bid after last valid bid. Can't really choose both to keep it at bidded value and lower to minimum. I think more fair option was to lower it to last+minimum than to honor "maximum bid" at 0.75.