To be entirely fair, there is missing money in at least one escrow transaction in which minerjones was a part of.
I don't think it would make much sense to start out with one of the keyholders who has a history I describe.
Considering that minerjones is statistically the most trusted member of the forum, who has escrowed large amounts of BTC for the forum, I'd say that he is a pretty good pick. Regardless of that though, anyone could have been picked in minerjones' place and it wouldn't have made a difference provided that the other keyholders are trusted enough to not conspire with them to steal the coins. I'm absolutely sure that theymos did his due diligence before picking the keyholders considering the massive amount of money at stake. The trust ratings/lists are manipulated through coercion. If the other keyholders are trustworthy enough to not collude with MJ, then theymos might as well allow there to be only 4 keyholders. There are unfortunately very few people who even come close to being trustworthy enough to be a keyholder. I presume it was not desired for theymos to be one of the keyholders, and he was one probably because of a lack of trustworthy candidates. Potential replacements for MJ would include, in no particular order: Dabs philipma1957 DannyHamilton TwinWinNerD qwk (I am not sure if he has held large amounts of others' money) smoothie RHavar There are drawbacks to a number of the above people, inactivity being one of them. |
|
|
|
...
The beauty of multisig is that you don't have to trust minerjones completely, you just have to trust the others to not conspire with him. You're being absurd. To be entirely fair, there is missing money in at least one escrow transaction in which minerjones was a part of. I don't think it would make much sense to start out with one of the keyholders who has a history I describe. |
|
|
|
I hear what you saying about the fixed price but you were paying 100k for hero when btc was 4k now btc is 8k that is double so it should be 50k but it is 37k that is 3x less.
Just saying...
I'm not the one who complains about the rewards, either you get out or remain, but I want to remain in Stake.com but Steve please give consideration about the rate the computation is less than 3 times less like what Mike Mayor stated 70k for hero and 50k for senior like me is ok or if you want it in dollar $5 for hero/legendary and $3.50 is acceptable, I hope you can consider this option, but I will respect whatever decision you come out on this. I think it's important to remember I was going to make this change when Bitcoin first passed 4k but I figured okay we'll give a bonus for a bit it's still uncertain where btc is going, then btc went to 5k, 6k, 7k, 8k and now even higher. I was giving thousands of dollars to the campaign members for free every single week, it couldn't last forever. I almost feel if I made the decision to counter the Bitcoin price fluctuation weeks ago some people would be happier even though they'd have less money right now. It's really just an illusion if anyone is upset right now because in that situation described people would be happier having made less money. Expecting wages to go up at the rate Bitcoin does for no reason other than btc is rising is insane and I thought I was doing something good for everyone by allowing that for this amount of time. Your campaign is tied for having the lowest rates (by far), effectively pays for an unlimited number of posts, and is well known for producing large amounts of spam/low quality posts/nonsense. IMO, there is a clear inverse relationship between pay rates and the quality of posts your advertising campaign is going to produce. I don't know why you would think someone who is going to put a lot of effort into their posts would want to participate in your campaign. Other campaigns pay >10x as much as yours, and has post maximums of 40-55 posts, that most people wont hit anyway. You require payments to a stake.com account, I presume to detect when someone tries to enroll multiple accounts in your campaign, but doing so would be pointless anyway because I doubt many people even reach 10% of the maximum payout each week. I remember the days in 2014, shortly after some new business stated accepting bitcoin, there would be multiple threads about the subject that would contain pages upon pages, upon pages of posts that said some iteration of "this is great news" and "too the moon" and the like, and most of these pages would be filled with those wearing PrimeDice advertisements in their signature. Today's situation is not quite that bad, but it is comparable. |
|
|
|
On an semi-unrelated note, blenderio now has three positive trust feedbacks from three newbie that all recently woke up, with their last post in 2018. I would not hold it against an established company if they were to receive fake reviews/fake trust ratings. Just as they could be from the company in question, they could also be from a competitor, a disgruntled employee/customer, or a troll. When it is stupidly obvious the reviews/ratings are fake, I am most inclined to believe the purpose of the fake reviews/ratings are to make the established company look bad. |
|
|
|
I posted the below to his thread, which I found deleted this morning: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Daily customers can get a discount.
I cannot image how someone would possible need to get positive trust "daily" Some people have looked into the claims that you have sold multiple positive ratings in one day, and the conclusion is, you are exaggerating the number of DT positive ratings you are giving. I personally think you are entirely full of BS and do not have the ability to give "green trust" from a DT member at all. I bet what he just did was troll all you guys and it worked marvelously..
Lol. This may well be part of what he is doing |
|
|
|
I don't think this is about a "protected" person possibly scamming. I think it is more about what would happen if *anyone* scams TF. It's an interesting experiment, but the value of it is eludes me. TF won't lend to a member with red trust, so it's almost like he wants, or needs a member with a good or neutral trust score to scam him for the experiment to work. And if or when that happens, what then? Does he expect DT members to stand by and not tag the scammer? I previously stated that it is my belief that part of the experiment was to see if someone with reputation to lose would scam him, so he doesn't necessarily need to get scammed. I am not sure what his end goals are, if any. He might be trying to see if it is safe for him to trade here. |
|
|
|
As an FYI, Spider703 was unbanned. His merit history on loyce.club reflects he is banned. Also, do you have the BB code of what this post was before the thread was deleted? Thanks. |
|
|
|
IMO, the purpose of this is to see if people are willing to scam a scammer and if anyone is willing to do anything about it (leave negative trust).
Isn't the answer to that question already obvious? "It depends". If 3-People scam then they will all receive different reactions. If (almost) anyone else were running this experiment I would happily take the "loan" to aide in your research with the caveat of neutral feedback or no feedback, but given your current standing (inb4 hypocrite) I feel like participating in this might assist you in scamming members in the future. I don't think this is about a "protected" person possibly scamming. I think it is more about what would happen if *anyone* scams TF. |
|
|
|
I don’t see anything about the T&C on the Mobile version. If you don’t affirmatively accept the T&C, they cannot bind you to it.
Mentioning it is insufficient. You must take affirmative action to accept it.
Also the user Lauda fails to realize this is the site as is now. When I first had that account opened it simply asked by checking the box you agree you are over 21 years of age in the district you reside in. Something along those lines. Was too wordy on age restriction with no T&C agreement. What about any time you logged into your account? Were you ever asked to acknowledge and accept the T&C? |
|
|
|
I'm not saying its a good thing that people leaves controversial feedback, I'm saying worrying about [controversial feedback ratings] is a waste of your time This has shown itself to be true. It didn’t used to be this way. In the past, a person was forced to defend controversial ratings. Today their supporters will troll the person who receives the negative ratings that are unjustified. I don’t see how anyone could take the trust system seriously after seeing this kind of reaction to a dispute. I also don’t understand why someone would possibly think it would be a good idea to run a bitcoin related business on the forum when you know there is a potential this will happen to your business. |
|
|
|
|
I don’t see anything about the T&C on the Mobile version. If you don’t affirmatively accept the T&C, they cannot bind you to it.
Mentioning it is insufficient. You must take affirmative action to accept it.
|
|
|
|
this thread has been up for 6 years, and it very clearly says to publish PM logs if you are making a scam accusation. There is no reason why you should expect privacy if you send a PM unencrypted. Period. I will repeat myself that if you don’t want a PM published in which you said something embarrassing, you should not send a PM containing something embarrassing. Why should you expect a PM to be private if its encrypted? I expect you'd give the receiver a way to unencrypt the message as its intended for them. What prevents them from posting it after unencrypting it? I also don't see anything about posting your own sensitive information in the scam report format. The whole basis of the argument is that Bill could have handled this better. They could have said the same thing they wanted about Lauda without calling out the person who gave them the information, that explicitly stated that they weren't saying it publicly because they were afraid of retribution. I think the point is more that encrypting a PM is a way to signal that you wish for the information to remain private, and providing an encryption key is a way to signal that you agree to keep encrypted information private. If you send me information, unsolicited and unencrypted, there should be no reason to believe I will keep said information confidential because that is not something I agreed to do. Similarly, if you send me bitcoin, unsolicited, to the address in my profile, there should be no expectation that I will return it to you upon your request -- I would return it to you, if I can and if I reasonably believe it was sent to me in error, but if I cannot access the money because of a lack of backups, I did not properly keep the private keys safe from malware, or hackers, if the address belongs to a charity, or to some third party or some other similar reason, I am not going to dip into my own pocket to send money back to you because I did not agree to safeguard your money, nor did I have the opportunity to negotiate the terms of doing so. (I have not ever posted that anyone can "just send" bitcoin to the address in my profile). If you had contacted me, saying that you want to provide sensitive information that you want kept confidential, I would have the opportunity to either promise to keep the information secret or to negotiate other terms to safeguard the information, including under what circumstances, if any, it can be disclosed. If you just send me information, unsolicited and unencrypted, I have no way of knowing your desire for confidentiality, and since I have not agreed to keep the information secret, by default would be willing to disclose the information if the information is relevant to a discussion. In regards to the message Bill Gator received, I don't see evidence he either agreed to keep the message confidential, nor did I see the desire it be kept confidential in the body of the message. The reason why you would send me a Personal message is because you specifically want me to see it. If you post something to me in the altcoin section, I can almost guarantee I will not see the message. If you post a message to me in another section, I may not ever see it, or it may be a long time before I see it. |
|
|
|
I can add and I can remove users from any of my campaigns at any time without having to give an explanation.
I am nothing but professional when it comes to my campaigns and all of it is in the public here at the forum.
 |
|
|
|
This is a good sign. I am curious why Elwar would post at all and not make some kind of statement. I think he probably posted that bump because CSW recently got the bitcoin white paper copyrighted in the US. I am not sure where he is now, but I presume he won’t give an update until he believes he is in a country that will not extradite him back to Thailand. That is a reasonable assumption. I would think that he would play it safe and not even log in again until he is though. If he is not in a safe place yet logging in or posting is probably not a good idea. I checked his Facebook and it is pretty locked down privacy wise, more so than it was previously when he was making the news and some number of status updates regarding his safety could be seen. I don't think theymos is going to give up location/IP information about Elwar easily, and could put up somewhat of a public fight if a court tried to force him to do so. I agree that accessing social media is not a good idea when on the "run" from a government that wants to harm you. |
|
|
|
This is a good sign. I am curious why Elwar would post at all and not make some kind of statement. I think he probably posted that bump because CSW recently got the bitcoin white paper copyrighted in the US. I am not sure where he is now, but I presume he won’t give an update until he believes he is in a country that will not extradite him back to Thailand. |
|
|
|
this thread has been up for 6 years, and it very clearly says to publish PM logs if you are making a scam accusation. There is no reason why you should expect privacy if you send a PM unencrypted. Period. I will repeat myself that if you don’t want a PM published in which you said something embarrassing, you should not send a PM containing something embarrassing. Did LFC scam anyone, I missed that part. This would extend to other disputes (which this would fall under), even if you are not a party to the dispute, and would really apply to any other situations in which the content of a PM is relevant to a conversation/discussion. |
|
|
|
this thread has been up for 6 years, and it very clearly says to publish PM logs if you are making a scam accusation. There is no reason why you should expect privacy if you send a PM unencrypted. Period. I will repeat myself that if you don’t want a PM published in which you said something embarrassing, you should not send a PM containing something embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
A personal message is sent to a specific person to read. There is no expectation of privacy.
In another twist of irony if the sender of the PM wanted it posted in the fucking forum he probably would have posted it in the fucking forum instead of sending it privately to one person. If something is posted that is intended to be read by one specific person and responded to by that person, it would get taken down by the moderators for doing exactly what you describe. It is horribly ironic to be telling a moderator what types of threads shouldn’t be posted. |
|
|
|
Here's the thing: BG is an asshole for publishing the PM of a member that sent him a message in confidence. If he is allowed to continue in his sig campaign, which is what this is obviously all about, well that's just not right, given the standards of it set forth. Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages. Unless the PM was encrypted, I don’t see any expectation of privacy. If you don’t want anything embarrassing you said in a PM to be published, don’t write anything embarrassing in a PM. You really don't see a difference between the note by theymos and the issue at hand? That note is not from theymos. It is standard on all SMF forums. I have long held that PMs not encrypted are fair game to be disclosed at the option of either party. It's called PRIVATE PERSONAL message for a reason. Everybody knows that it is a dick move to publicly post PMs. You should post a screen shot of where it is called *private* message. I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can provide a verifiable screenshot in the next hour. Fixed my post, still doesn't change the point. A personal message is sent to a specific person to read. There is no expectation of privacy. In that case, would you be so kind to upload all your PMs on Pastebin? No. It is my option to release my own PMs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
