Assuming you believe s1lveebox, his account was sold in or after October 2014 per https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770600.msg9065221#msg9065221

The connection between Watoshi-Dimobuto and the rest is prior to when this happened. Watoshi-Dimobuto‘s connection is from August 2014.

The repayment address for the loan in question is here and is unedited. Being that this is a different address that he is being asked to disburse the funds to, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for verification, unless he can agree to have the funds sent to the repayment address.

During the last halving, I had the pleasure of being in the middle of a peer to peer bitcoin trade with a fellow bitcoiner. I don't think it was a particularly large trade, nor one that I made a substantial amount of money on, but it was appropriate given the circumstances.

This halving, I did not have that same opportunity, in part because it occurred during a work day, and in part because it occurred in the middle of a pandemic. 

Hopefully, everyone had a happy halving, and I wish for everyone to see many more halvings.

Per mprep above, someone reported the 5 year old posts (recently)

Many major social media sites, such as twitter enforce rules in a specific way so that certain groups of users are affected more than others. I hope this is not a road that bitcointalk is going down.

I haven't reviewed the deleted posts by TECHARE that he posted closely, but I would agree that at least some of them did break the forum rules around NSFW posts. Even though I don't know this to be true, I would even stipulate all of TECHARE's posts violated forum rules. However I would caution against going full Gretchen Whitmer on users, especially if they are objectively speaking making a good faith effort to debate, and engage with other forum members. If someone posts a NSFW image, [ img] it out, so it won't display by default. Off topic rules state that for a post to be on topic, it must be related to the OP of a thread, and some people are very good at making the majority of the post be off topic, and a single sentence at the end be related to the OP -- when this happens, and the off topic portion is responded to, without anything in the response being related to the OP, a topic split should be created.

Thank you for responding. Yes, it was mprep that deleted my posts, based on who edited those that I looked at, however I did not want to call you out by name to avoid creating unnecessary drama. I have no reason to believe this was malicious on your part, or on the part of any other moderator.

To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of the rule in question, posted in April 2016.


I don't think this is in line with the above rule, and would also violate the forum stance against ex-post-facto rules, as someone has no way of knowing if someone else's post would be deleted when they make a post, so they have no way of knowing they would need to edit their post. In other words, someone has no way of knowing they need to follow a certain rule when they make a post. The logic behind the rule is that multi-posting unfairly bumps threads, and spams watch lists, neither of which apply in a situation in which someone else has replied to a thread.

Had no one reported your posts, I'd agree. I didn't dig those topics and posts up myself, someone reported them.

---

This is the point of my creating this thread.

To my knowledge, I was not punished for having my posts removed, other than my receiving 60+ PMs about deleted posts. As far as I am aware, I was not banned for these posts. The majority of the posts were deleted May 2, in two batches, with seconds being in-between the time I had posts deleted in each batch, which implies automation was used in responding to the reports against me. I was not aware of my posts being deleted for over 3 days, so in theory, I could have been banned for 3 days without my knowledge, however if this was the case, it was not followed. I have serious doubts that I will be banned for this, or at all.

I have my suspicious as to who is behind the reports, although I don't want to name names right now. I would understand more if the threads were active, and there were old bumps, but neither applies. As mentioned above, it is possible someone is just trying to pad their reporting stats. Or maybe someone is just trying to create trouble....

I would blame both the reporter and the mod that removed the posts. It is the mods job to make sure the action they are taking conforms with the rules, otherwise what is the point of having him as a mod?

In the thread I linked, when the posts were made, they conformed with the current implementation of the rule (that wasn’t in effect at the time). The person who I was interacting with had deleted his posts in an effort to cover up his fraud, but that is a separate issue.

Frankly, pretty much any report on posts that are 5 years old should be marked as bad. There is no reason why action should be taken on posts this old in nearly all cases. If you are going back this far to report posts, you are either trying to create trouble or are trying to pad your stats.

A more simple solution would be to use multi sig, which is basically what you are proposing, except in a round about way.

Health officials are playing politics and are directing meat processing plants to close when they have an outbreak.

It only takes one infected person to spread the virus to the rest of the ship. The majority of people who are infected will never show any symptoms and people are infected for a period of time before they will test positive.

Part of this is because trust disputes involving default trust used to be located in Meta, and some number of years ago these threads were redirected to reputation. When DT disputes were posted in meta, the reputation board had nearly zero activity.

Today I found over 60 posts in my inbox that were all messages saying I had posts deleted.

It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed.

The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.

Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.

It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.

Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).

The requirement should be that the account is locked so to prevent this kind of incentive. There could also be a requirement that this would only be applied to legendary, high profile accounts who have a long history of contributing to the community.

---

I would propose that all of Bruno’s publicly known accounts be banned with a ban message saying to contact theymos if his next of kin wants access to his PMs. I think a custom title such as “Bruno” being applied to all his alts that are public would be enough to honor him.

Objectively speaking, I think Bruno contributed enough to deserve some kind of honor, especially considering the number of years he has contributed.

Bruno was a really good guy. I only knew him from his interactions with him here, but he always put in effort to make people laugh. He also put in a lot of effort to try to protect the vulnerable from getting stolen from, over the years, he had gotten banned umpteen times but he would just create and/or use other accounts to continue his work and provide meaningful interactions with the community. He ended up with multiple accounts in the top rankings in terms of numbers of posts. Unlike many others, he didn’t attempt to maximize his earnings from participating here. If you ask my opinion, he genuinely cares about the bitcointalk community.

Bruno is actually the only forum member who has heard my voice. A year or two back, he was trying to prove he hadn’t sold his account and I called him to verify his phone number was still connected to him, and I vouched for him. I’ve texted, emailed and traded with other forum members but not spoken on the phone.

Based on his obituary and what he wrote, it doesn’t sounds like he was terribly suffering immediately before his death and for that I am glad.  

RIP.

5G towers tend to be located in densely populated areas. Densely populated areas will result in the coronavirus spreading more quickly because people are closer together. So yes, if you are near a 5G tower there is a higher chance you will get coronavirus, but not because of the tower.

I can assure you that what you describe has happened years ago, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it continues to happen. Luckily, in the above case, the imposter made a mistake, although that could have been by design.

One way to prevent yourself from falling for this is to confirm that whatever was received was valuable and was actually spent. The order addresses were posted may allow you to rule out an impostor. Someone trying to attract attention is a good indicator they are an imposter.

You really need to think critically when deciding if a posted addresses is evidence that two accounts are alts.

Oh wow, that is not good.

I always enjoyed reading your posts, even if they did sometimes break the rules -- you always had a certain level of energy and enthusiasm in your writing. I also know that at least in your forum related dealings, you would always do the right thing, and would always push for the right thing. I have no reason to doubt you were any different IRL.

It really sucks you have to live your presumptive last days under lockdown due to the coronavirus. I hope you are able to experience something that brings you at least some amount of joy in your last days.

God bless, bud! 

The Covid19 is a major world issue right now affecting nearly every single person right now. I suspect that over half the world population is on some kind of lockdown or restrictions because of Covid19.

I think I would suspect many threads about this topic to appear both in P&S and elsewhere (that are correctly posted).

---

I do wish that more would be done to fight the misinformation about Covid19. Perhaps the forum could donate an ad spot to a link to an authoritative source about good information.

https://twitter.com/MichaelDell/status/1240646855601664001

Michael Dell says for these people to not apply to any of his companies.

Having internet access is not the same as having access to forum infrastructure if it is separate from his house and/or if he keeps whatever he needs to access the infrastructure off site.

Also if he is sick, he may go to a hospital if he gets worse. I obviously don’t wish that on him or anyone, but I am also aware of the risk of that happening.

I would not be worried about CFs ability to handle additional capacity. I would be more worried about the forum’s servers being able to handle the additional demand, however the privacy policy implies cloud services (such as, or similar to AWS) and they are very scalable.

Theymos recently posted that he had symptoms of coronavirus, but says he is feeling better, so it is possible he is under quarantine orders, or is staying home to avoid infecting others even if not ordered to do so. If the capacity to handle traffic is needing to be increased, Cyrus may need to handle it.