The OP did say this in this thread, however this was not actually mentioned in the OPs conversation with Bob. In the telegram chat, Bob stated that he wanted to be sure the OP actually owned the accounts he was selling. There was no mention of post quality prior to when Bob agreed to buy the "green trusted" account upon receiving a PM from it to confirm the OP actually owned it.

Also, the specific account in question was actually Ntrain2k[/quote], who has not been active very much after the merit system was implemented, however it does not appear to be farmed, and doesn't appear to have ever participated in any kind of signature (or similar) campaign.


Fair enough regarding being conservative as to which flags you support. However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless (you can read my comments in this thread).

The flag (once created) would warn anyone considering to trade with Bob that he previously broke an agreement, and has not made the other person whole.
I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190619113422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 <-- OP's sales thread
http://archive.is/rlBTD <-- telegram conversation.

Unless you can explain why there was not a broken agreement (you say the accounts didn't make high quality posts, but this was not a term of the deal, implied or otherwise), if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it, and if you don't, you should be held accountable. There are no ifs, thans, or buts to this concept.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

I have re-reviewed the reference thread and relevant threads, and other information, and after consideration, have decided to remove the signature.

What threads are you referring to?

If you are talking about the guide type threads, I would say it is almost certainly for merit. Although the OP may want visibility for their threads so others might respond.

If someone posts those types of posts, you can report the post as being low content, and it should be removed by a moderator. Perhaps a solution might be to disable the OP topics from being able to delete comments, but allow the OP to prevent certain ranks and users from being able to post in a topic.

mprep has done a good job with the altcoin section, although there is a lot of activity there for one or two people to handle. I am fairly confident he uses one or more scripts to help him with his job. Possibly including one that automatically finds ANN threads posted outside of the appropriate subs.

There is an entire subforum designated for altcoin ANN threads, and another for service ANN threads. If an ANN thread is posted outside of these two subs, they should be moved by a moderator. If there is a thread that is not an ANN thread (except an “unmoderated” thread), it should be moved outside of these two subs.

If the OPs suggestion were to get implemented, it seems a simple solution would be to prevent self moderated threads in either of these subs.

FGPA mining for bitcoin has not been a thing for a long time now. Perhaps in altcoin mining, but I am not so sure.

The OPs escrow service is not well known to me, and is not well known to bitcointalk. Also, I did not call his service a scam, I was merely asking questions, although I believe that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

I still don't understand why these people are trusting you in the first place. The discoed channel you run only purports to have ~500 members and does not appear to be especially active.

Your discord channel says it is about "FPGA" -- is your community primarily based outside of the crypto space?

Your account is 3 months old, and you have made 15 posts. Why would people be trusting you? and why should people trust you? I have not seen evidence of any kind of reputation outside the forum.

Further, I am fairly confident you are not running an escrow service out of your BTC address.

For example, in ecdc594262582c9573beab2ff99e619bfc585dfbd5d39d4a6dd6a2a4817ed929 you spent all of the bitcoin in your stated escrow address that contained 4 inputs received on 3 different days from what appear to be 4 different sources. Further, you do not appear to be taking your stated fees out of transactions you spend.

I don't think she has any legal authority to force Facebook to stop developing Libra. She probably does have the authority to subpoena Facebook executives to testify before her committee.

I also don't think there is a basis for being concerned that Facebook has a lot of data on its users, when discussing Libra. Most of what Facebook has access to is irrelevant to Libra, and banks have access to much more relevant information about their customers, especially their long standing customers, and they have access to information contained in third party databases such as credit reporting agencies.

The concept of a stablecoin is also not new, and stablecoins have had mainstream acceptance in the crypto space for years now.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about Facebook, but IMO libra is not one of them.   
 

The FAA has ordered US flag civilian aircraft to stay away from the area this happened. International airlines have given pilots directions to do the same.

Frankly, Iran has every reason to lie about the location of the drone, and the US has much more to lose in terms of credibility, as do US officials who are saying they have seen evidence the drone was in international waters.

It is illogical to believe the Iran government, over the US by default.

If this was the case, I would suspect the hacker would decrypt the hashed passwords before trying to logging in, and the OP would be receiving emails (hopefully) to approve a login from a new IP address/device.

It is more likely that the OPs email was part of a hacked database (or multiple databases) separate from Deribit that included (hashed) passwords, and someone with access to the DB is trying these passwords to access the OPs account, hoping he reused passwords.

Exchanges have started cashing in on the ICO craze, and are doing the leg work required to do basic due diligence on projects and teams, and are leveraging their existing user base to reach many people instead of ICOs trying to advertise on many platforms.

Nearly every project who an exchange will accept will choose to do an IEO on an exchange over doing an ICO on bitcointalk/twitter/other social media.

---

The Junior member signature cannot display very much, it is not as flashy as higher rank signatures, and the threshold to become a Junior member is low, so there are a lot of them. The lack of signature features, along with huge supply of Junior members means any signature campaign that accepts JRs is going to pay very little.

It doesn't cost anything to wear a signature as a JR member, but what you will earn in a signature campaign is probably not going to be worth your time.

Perhaps you should stop commenting if you don't know what you are talking about -- I get that you want to make use of that paid avatar, but these types of posts are very harmful.

None of what you said has anything to do with the specific fact set that results in the OP being in breach of contract with the seller he was dealing with.

I think reviewing all feedback should be encouraged, regardless of how much positive or negative they have.

Some mentioned in the OP should not reasonably be dangerous to trust, and others should in no way be trusted under any circumstances. If someone has a negative rating for something frivolous, a potential trading parter will see it and promptly ignore it. If someone does something warranting negative trust (eg, selectively scamming), but has many friends on DT, they can get many positive ratings to have the negative rating be less prominent.

https://github.com/buxlover/autobump

I didn't create this personally, nor have I inspected it.

People have sold similar bots in the past, and even tried to use this as a service.

The only reason why he received the information in the first place is because he entered into an agreement.

The OP would not have received said information if he had not agreed to buy the forum accounts after receiving the PM.

It is good to know you will oppose holding someone accountable for not honoring their terms of an agreement, and that you will protect someone who lied in order to get something from someone.

IMO, your best overall option is to use coinbase pro, if you live in a supported state. They have the highest liquidity of exchanges accessible to US residents/citizens and the trading fees are not unreasonable. If you can't use coinbase pro, I would not use coinbase because they will charge several percent for you to buy/sell.

In addition to what others have suggested, gemini is also open to US residents, however their fees are ridiculously high.

I’m sure there are at least three people in DT willing to support a flag for someone who was harmed, even if the underlying business they are involved in is not well liked.

If someone can break their agreements with someone who is unpopular, the trust system would be pretty pointless, and would be nothing other than a popularity contest.

The price of bitcoin has roughly doubled in that time, so it more than evens out.

If you will make enough posts, it is the highest paying campaign, except for chipmixer. They won’t have the same problem Stake had in that their rates only attracted spammers. They just need to be sure to keep the spammers out.