A personal message is sent to a specific person to read. There is no expectation of privacy.

He is also paying them very well with money from his customers.

He also appears to more or less make decisions on behalf of his customers however these people want him to do, even if not in his customers best interest.

He is borderline embezzling his customers money.

He basically bought what amounts to a copper membership. His account had ~100 posts when he bought it.

There are other reputable people who have bought their account who are on DT. Lauda went into business with aTriz who was purchased. Blazed both bought and sold accounts, but is praised by lauda and gang.

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.

Obviously. They don’t even try to hide it anymore

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.

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.

^^Are you able to scrape individual trust ratings? If you can, you could filter all the ratings sent prior to today and who has sent less than two positive rating today.

The fact they were using negative trust means the ratings say “bill is a scammer because...” and none of them are accurate.

Bill really didn’t step on many toes, he stepped on a very small number of toes who have zero tolerance for dissent. He doesn’t have negative trust for buying his account, the negative trust is because he dissented.

Yes, you can resubmit

Edit: removed his post, although he can submit his posts and they will be reviewed.

There is a picture of her with Trump in 2006, she was not attractive in that picture.

Based on the charges he is facing, I don't see Avenatti ever working as a lawyer, or possibly professionally again. He might get a book deal, but depending on the specific circumstances, he might not see that money depending on the specific circumstances regarding what his book is about and the charges surrounding his relationship with Daniels.

The first round started Dec 21, and ended on the 28th29th. The second round would have ended on Jan 5, which is 7 days later. There were two entries posted on Jan 5, one at 12:34 AM and the other at 9:54 PM.

I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry.

They also said they would host the giveaway up to 4 times per month
Even though they didn't technically say the giveaway was going to stop, they did not specifically say it will continue, and my reading of the post announcing the giveaway doesn't obligate them to continue additional rounds.

It also says only forum members that are "member" rank or better can participate, although this is listed under "bitcointalk" and could be read as the contest is only open to "members" and better. cornl was the 2nd person to enter and his merit history reflects he only had 2 merit as of when the round was over, but the other person who entered in time, rat03gopoh did have enough merit to rank to member.

The additional requirement is ambiguous, and it is not clear to me what was expected to be eligible. It appears they speak Russian, perhaps as their primary language. I tried translating the additional requirement into Russian and back into English to see if ambiguity is removed, this is the result:
Still not very good.

I don't think how they conducted themselves is very professional, but I would not consider being unprofessional a reason to call the person a scammer.

I am not going to advocate one way or another for or against their tag. Some people have avoided getting tagged for a bigger stretch of logic, but I think that logic was completely BS, however it is precedent -- there is no need to re-litigate that here.

He has been charged with *more* crimes regarding money owed to Stormy Daniels.

I knew he was banned days ago when his signature reflected:

The above in addition to the fact that he hasn’t posted in several days, starting prior to when he was banned. I believe he was banned on May 19 just before 9PM.

I would presume that anyone else could make the same conclusion.

(Technically I don’t *know* he was banned at all or at that time, but it is reasonable for one to reach the conclusion).

I don’t understand why it is even necessary for a third party to run a bot to detect plagiarism. If most cases are as simple as theymos describes, finding plagiarism should be as simple as a database query. This is especially true if the goal is to detect all cases of plagiarism in which exactly the entire post was copied, but slightly more advanced queries could be done to find more tricky cases of plagiarism.

The above would remove any question of someone being targeted because of something they said or their stance in a dispute. It should also allow us to detect ~all cases of plagiarism and should be able to do so moving forward in real time.

No, I don’t trust suchmoon to not intentionally target someone (or avoiding checking/reporting someone) based on who they are or what their stances are, or whose side they take, etc. 

I agree 100% that he should have checked post quality, but I am not aware of any basis for checking for plagiarism in 2015. If he had gotten banned for spamming in 2015 that lasted a week, I would be on the same page, but it is 2019 and his ban is ~8 weeks and has a 102 week sig ban.

It is my understanding that sig spammers were generally receiving a 3 or 7 day ban for a first offense back then, not the 60 day ban plus a 2 year sig ban he received. I am also not aware of anyone receiving a ban for insubstantial posts with a paid sig well after post quality has improved.

Lauda is not blowing smoke. Bill did something that lauda doesn’t like and he is looking for an excuse to give negative trust.

It is not possible to prove a one post newbie is not an alt of someone. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone could possibly do that.

So the spam was a problem back then, but I don't think there were any instances in which anyone who stopped spamming and started making decent posts was in any real any danger of getting banned. So if you take the premise that the OP bought the account and should have known it had a poor history, the way he could have resolved the poor history at the time would be to start making decent posts and he wouldn't be in any additional danger of a ban. Also, someone with a hundred posts (the number bill gator had when it was purchased) would generally not get permabanned as soon as discovered as it was posting garbage, it would generally receive a number of temp bans to give the opportunity to improve, so his risk at the time was he would receive a temp ban, and would need to make better posts moving forward, the later of which he did.

Plagiarism may have been common back then (IDK one way or another), but I don't think it was known to be a problem, nor known to be common.

All of this revolves around if Bill should have reasonably checked for plagiarism when he bought the account.

The point is that multiple people, yourself included are tagging him based on what a one post newbie is saying without any supporting evidence. Lauda is saying he is going to have at least orange trust forever regardless of the opinion of anyone else based on the uncorroborated word of a one post newbie

If Bill Gator was not told which post was plagiarized when he was banned, then the question becomes how did the OP know which post he was banned for *before* he opened this thread.

The implication is the OP is not Bill Gator appealing his ban, but rather someone else trying to give an excuse to tag him.

This is good to know. I will be sure to keep this for future reference.

If the claims in the medium article are true and can be verified, specifically that he used his credit card to purchase the bitcoin.org domain in 2008, this would be very strong evidence that he is satoshi. I don't think these claims have been proven, and I was also previously under the impression that satoshi had used cash in the mail to pay for the domain registration/hosting.

The medium article also implies that CSW no longer has access to his private keys, and I generally believe this to be true considering satoshi has not spent any of his coins even after bitcoin reached ~$20K. Further evidence of this being true is satoshi not stepping in (with proof of who he is) to try to mediate the block size debate in 2014-2017 when things were very heated.

If CSW is in fact satoshi (he has done things to "prove" he is satoshi that I would consider fraudulent, so I am very skeptical), I would not automatically agree with everything he says, nor his stances of various crypto topics. I maintain my ability to think for myself. In fact I would disagree with many of his stances, including those that caused bitcoin cash to split SV to split off from BCH.