So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

I came across something today, and I'd like to get further clarification on a couple of things.

1) Scope of the service Cryptios is offering to the forum. I was under the impression it was solely for account recoveries.
2) Forum policy regarding Locking accounts suspected to have been hacked, sold or otherwise changed hands.

I'm concerned about action being taken without the account recovery process being started by anyone claiming ownership of the account. I've quoted the post below, I can understand the reasoning behind taking action; if forum policies have changed. Currently though this seems to be an overreach, and has the potential to lock peoples accounts unnecessarily. I don't think an account should be locked without the recovery process being started.

Do we know for sure that it was sold? I will unlock it if he will be able to prove that it wasn't hacked by going through the recovery process, however, my "hacked" radar is off the charts

https://binance.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360028031711

So far it doesn't seem that Binance themselves got hacked, but that they were simply unable to save less cautious users from themselves.

Wouldn't such a course of action pretty much have to be coming from the very top and be a company policy?

Otherwise a company would be quite to flag cases where the claimed reasons didn't add up with the facts and the guidelines/ToS.

Yes, the vast majority of altcoins will die and become almost worthless, at the latest when the developers will run out of money to continue the project or when they notice that their promise and business model is not possible to realize.
It's very impressive that so many projects from 2013 / 2014 failed when the intention of a project wasn't to collect money how it's nowadays. That's important to consider how 99% of all projects launched in the ICO hype will end...
Will be funny to see coinmarketcap in 2 or 3 years which coins will disappear.

You mean like the pajeets are stealing identities to get bigger payouts? Thought that behaviour was ok with you?

lets set a ETH and BTC address and everytime we spot one of these lets swap it out - save up and have a crypto meetup on the bounty hunters work!

This has been happening for a very long time, and has nothing to do with your account. It could easily be prevented, for instance by setting up Google Docs to scrape the addy from the Location field in your profile. I've been playing around with that a while back, but didn't get it working exactly how I wanted.

There's also no need at all to post a Bitcointalk username if the bounty has nothing to do with this forum. They could just as well omit the username and only let them only spam their Telegram.

"Proof of authentication" is some sort of legalized bumping spam. It goes directly against the forum rules:
But without this bumping spam, bounty threads quickly disappear from the first page and don't get the participants they want.
There's absolutely no need to spam the same address in many different threads, that's what a profile page is for. It's very easy to scrape that and stop all account-abuse. But that requires a bounty manager who cares, which won't happen as long as they earn more from spamming more.

Don't flatter yourself, it's either a bot or an idiot

I'm just hoping this person doesn't use the same token address and/or telegram address and register for a signature campaign and start posting bullshit. I don't want my account linked to some bounty cheater's account. I wonder why they picked little old me? I wonder if I should actually be flattered.  

If you're bored, try asking the bounty manager to change the address to one you control 

Thats absolute bullshit. Libel against who? You can't libel somebody if you don't know who you're libeling. One anonymous accounts words towards another has never been grounds for libel.

they have up to 250k coins[...]

. this is an institutional seller that pools miners coins

Just to clear everything up, I gave Thule my IP, my full name, my location, my ICQ number - everything he asked.  He threw around a lot of imaginary lawyer info, but in the end...

He did nothing - his word is worth nothing.

Now he is trying it again - LOL

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139852.msg50919134#msg50919134

Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam".

OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation.

I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying.

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

would not have removed my rating against lauda under any circumstances that doesn’t involve substantial evidence of his evidence.

One can reasonably compare lauda to TradeFortress. If my memory serves me correctly regarding what I have read about the inputs scam, TF refunded the majority of money deposited into inputs, refunded the entire deposit amount of large depositors (investors), and only a small percentage (0%?) of small deposits under a certain threshold. I also believe that there were claims TF was using the trust system to silence people critical of him until he was ultimately removed from being on DT1.

In the escrow transaction that lauda was involved in (that was non-transparent), a mixture of bitcoin and various altcoins were deposited into escrow that was strongly implied to be 2-of-3 multisig with 3 escrows each holding one of the private keys. The altcoins were converted into bitcoin via exchanges, however the amount sent back to escrow was well below what would be expected, based on the *low* of exchange rates in the several time periods after the various alts were deposited into exchanges. The discrepancy was in excess of a million dollars based on exchange rates at the time. I also strongly believe that the private keys required to sign the various transactions to spend the money in escrow were controlled by one person.

The project ended up failing and those who invested were due refunds. IIRC refunds were given based on how many tokens were purchased. After the ICO sale, and after the altcoins were converted into bitcoin, nearly all altcoin values declined substantially, so the ICO investors likely ended up in a better position than if they owned the tokens and if they had owned their various altcoins they used to invest in the project, both even after accounting for the discrepancy. As such, less people complained than would otherwise be expected. However it still appears money was stolen. The majority of money was returned to investors.

When there are million dollar discrepancies in transactions, a promise for a similar situation not to happen again is insufficient. It is necessary to leave a negative rating warning others about the incident. Period. If TF promised not to offer deposit services that gets “hacked” again, it would be wholly inappropriate to remove his negative ratings. If Mark Kaapolis (or however his name is spelled— the person in charge of Gox) returned saying that he promises not to “lose” a billion dollars worth of customer money, it would be inappropriate to remove the ratings warning others against depositing money with him. Lauda and friends currently use the trust system to silence their critics.

The primary difference between lauda and TF (and Gox) is that TF admitted he didn’t return all the money owed to depositors. Lauda on the other hand refused to admit not all money was returned and refused to answer any questions about what happened to the money. Perhaps this is a lesson to scammers that if you refuse to answer questions about any missing money, you won’t be held accountable for any missing money.

I would rather be labeled a scammer (incorrectly) and excluded up the wazoo than be prohibited from warning others about his previous scammy behavior.

as i know there is no faster way to get listed on the big exchange unless you are willing to pay
i found this post about listing fee for your coins to be listed on an exchange but i don't know if the info is correct or still same?