The US government imposes its laws onto much of the rest of the world. Other countries are technically sovereign, but the US doesn’t give them complete freedom.

This is not entirely bad, for example the US government is putting pressure on the Venezuela government to restore democracy and put an end to human rights abuses. Ditto during the Cold War when the US was trying to stop the spread of communism.

I am not sure it is accurate to say those statements are reasonably believed.

Perhaps Vod (who does not like OgNasty) could create a thread explaining that he believes OgNasty was overcharging for holding forum money (while ignoring the fact the amounts charged was agreed to by both parties) and open a Type 1 flag. Being that other people also do not like OgNasty on DT, they will support said flag, while not actually believing the above criteria, or at least not reasonably so.

Here is a good example of this in action, although the fact set is different.

Perhaps you should have read the remainder of my post:

Also, nearly 40% of who applied on your signature campaign thread who were wearing a stake.com signature as of Sunday had received either 0 or 1 merit as of last Sunday. This does not count any merit anyone received as part of being "grandfathered" into the merit system when it was implemented. If you don't believe me, here is the data I collected:

The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
^received payment in advance
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.

Previously, leaving a negative rating would effectively cripple a person's ability to conduct business, as it created the bight red warning to "trade with extreme caution", regardless of what the comment said. Now, if you were to leave negative trust for "liking lemons" there will be no bright red warning, and anyone reading this comment will promptly ignore the rating -- in other words, the negative rating no longer cripples a person's ability to conduct business.

What the above means is Lauda can no longer use the threat of him sending a negative rating as a means to get what he wants out of people, others will no longer be afraid of criticizing him (Lauda has given many people negative trust for criticizing him, recently explicitly for doing this, and previously, the comment was for other, bogus reasons, but was done immidiately after they criticized him. if lauda wants to open a flag against someone, they need to create a thread in which the person in question can be defended by himself or others -- lauda had said today that "no discussion is necessary" for flags he opened today.

32KWpF9URwysaHmyvYJFN9RNJ9iBsCX6rE belongs to Hhampuz

This is the address where Hhampuz receives the payment for managing all of his signature campaigns.

For example, to 32kwpF...6rE is 44e85e0c987db8768d69cc0201d59a639483c0201424ebe215e6a5b1903eae1b which is from bc1qfsra7mfzu3e9kkx53kacfg25e65xu75lgllqrk -- he posted a link to the above txid here, indicating he paid the week three payments for the BitcoinCasino.com signature campaign. This address is part of [6df4a1879c] on walletexplorer. Also from this address is 8c3b182116928314fa0bcb4f4c6a99a967a786e7b505f400ca5ea8f3446faa56 which Hhampuz posted here, and 01ee6575c59e3664a5c012f607f9bfce18cffceba5329362a78a6e0bf603f2c4 which Hhampuz posted here, both for the same signature campaign. Each time, as part of the payments to participants for this campaign, he sends himself 0.0225 BTC.


Looking at other transactions received by 32kwpF...6rE, 5fb428c2a968df5ba884a19a77dd2bf894e1e9e0ce0697f1f0098c9ba3486fa6 was posted here, and 5f16ba490237a1cda6e4c1cef5cbb172ece4c48474568c7705ce8fe2f2c2d00a was posted here, both from bc1qqc69ylxx9d6vm3j35vqxd3t90fxulr7n22rsnt both in the amount of 0.02 BTC and both in the PlayBetr signature campaign threads.


Also to 32kwpF...6rE is a0365aa7d569d24b738e0acffd0a89f5b8f59be14ada229faf59164543f8ca6c which is from 1Nz6yBEKg8Wr8zGVZcxTrQUbGneRXbChij which also sent BTC to Hhampuz via f1de4e80724bb26352d6889aeff249bae2063dc95b7363f2a08943aa7d6732d3 9328e72667cb49a7c9b257dda145d219347efe97a7164f897f0cfcb52fc54780 e128901031405a773ce6f5ad41f8ddb5bd2f88b96b15e631b3561d1a0a0fc86c and abc337ab33cd691c5d2d8d7e91276157a23276be6b8030a349343a367fd8a78a .... none of these transactions were posted by Hhampuz, however they were all either immidiately before or after 24427e9d1e7df01f5e5552a1cc67196d9093e1fda49e7298c019f72e3eb38816 which Hhampuz posted here, 299ffbe32197672df2da3aca53e9c52580d0b248cf36534c1d700bf2b34a9427 posted here, 0d23a199251cee7f60ac539ee5e211e6a73192478f26950de9e0c94da1832a81 posted here, e16b5109391e1f7a38a80010dbef31a85ef6fc6ba0ac6c627fb198615b57714c posted here, 8bdbd1de5c240c793db410dc7b4860d828492bb9b8f8f17b3544507b054aa2d9 posted here, all of the transactions are from 1Nz6yBEKg8Wr8zGVZcxTrQUbGneRXbChij and are posted in the LiveCoin signature campaign. Some of the transactions (not mentioned) immidiately before/after the LiveCoin signature payments were sent to other addresses than 32kwpF...6rE and some of the LiveCoin signature payments have small amounts additionally sent to 32kwpF...6rE that is not accounted for on his spreadsheet.

To even further strengthen the connection to Hhampuz, 572f1c9db10f5a1841165bea13baaa7ba59c85404798eecca9c02ef3f9a5c597 sent BTC to 32kwpF...6rE which was from 3MFaRCvArRg5ELaoUotHpDcVCaHSpDgDGn   which Hhampuz posted here as the payment address for a raffle. As a side note, the BTC in 3MFaRCvArRg5ELaoUotHpDcVCaHSpDgDGn eventually made its way into a Poloniex account that does not belong to Hhampuz, which indicates he was selling a physical coin not belonging to him, but that is off topic here.

The tl;dr is Hhampuz consistently received transactions to 32kwpF...6rE either as part of, or immediately before/after transactions that paid participants of three signature campaigns he is/was running, and received a transaction directly from a raffle he was hosting.

---

Back to the transaction in which Hhampuz received his 0.5BTC loan, 37892d5fa2478958ef322e6261a9dd6695943affc175f40109b98381f9bee99d is from bc1qjw4n3mu5q2hlzjca3ufkhyn7pzmw6pshruzu9f which belongs to DarkStar_. The loan was received on May 10, and 32kwpF...6rE is part of [021ea21872] on WalletExplorer. This wallet, and other addresses I found that had known personal funds of Hhampuz had a zero or near zero balance immidiately after receiving 0.5BTC from DarkStar_.

---

I had discovered the loan some time ago, and as I told DarkStar_, I did not want to screw him over in exposing the loan before he was repaid, decreasing the chances he would be repaid. It was pointed out to me that DarkStar_ had recently sent trust to Hhampuz for repaying the 0.5BTC loan, and it looks like Hhampuz also gave DarkStar_ positive trust for this loan.

You are putting a bounty on finding out who your critics are?

37892d5fa2478958ef322e6261a9dd6695943affc175f40109b98381f9bee99d
Loan date: May 10, 2019
Amount 0.5 BTC
Date of theft: May 22, 2019

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

It appears their signature campaign is closing:

1, I am not liberal, 2 you are not centre-right. You are authoritarian, who disregards consensus of opposition to what you are doing, and tries (often successfully) to silence those who criticize you. Further, you are corrupt.  

2, you do not care about anyone getting scammed. You do not prevent anyone from getting scammed, rather the opposite, as you have diluted the effect of negative trust so much that people have learned to ignore it. In the process, you have damaged the reputations of many people for arbitrary reasons, often without any kind of violation of even a clear guideline.

Based on your corruption and history of extortion and scamming, you should be given an untrustworthy tag similar to the one that Matthew M Wright has.

He is being intentionally dishonest. He has always used this strong language whenever he was excluded from DT multiple times. I suspect this somewhat has to do with why he kept receiving additional inclusions under the old system. There was never any basis for this kind of language. 

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

He can, and should hardcode exclusions to anyone who has you on their trust list.

The majority of people who have you on their trust list are scammers, and/or what amounts to your puppet incapable of thinking for themselves. In all cases, they are showing extreme bad judgment

Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.

He was trying to convince others to agree with him.

You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present.

Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned.

Okay. Thanks for that. This doesn’t change the need to wait for the person behind the account (or business behind it), to scam to create this kind of flag.

You should distrust Lauda from your trust list.

Theymos probably means that BSV is ~insane from a technical standpoint, but has not caused anyone harm by existing.

Lauda made an affirmation that was untrue. Why would anyone believe what Lauda says in the future if he is willing to knowingly and intentionally affirm (promise to be true) some untrue?

You are ignoring the fact he believes bitcoin cash to be bitcoin.

There isn’t any in charge of naming various coins that decided bitcoin is named bitcoin.

they clearly trust him enough to use his forum.

IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose.