Auction ended. Final result:
Slots BTC/Slot Person
2 4.25 ktzhan
3 4 betcointm
2 4 CEX

Someone should create a site where you enter a P2SH address, it gives back a traditional address, and when it receives money at the traditional address, it immediately forwards the unconfirmed BTC to the P2SH address. (Unmodified Bitcoin-Qt can do this sort of thing, I think.) Not terribly secure, but better than giving up on advanced features entirely.

CoinJoin needs to be nicely implemented in Bitcoin-Qt before any of these ridiculous blacklist proposals take off. So for the next 30 days, I will match donations to the CoinJoin bounty fund (3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk), up to a maximum of 5 BTC. Just donate to that address, and in 30 days I'll donate the difference between the current received amount (16.21420773) and the received amount at that time (max 5 BTC).

Edit: Paid 5 BTC.

Trust only appears on certain sections. Look at his profile.

You can't add the option to a topic that already exists. You'll see the option here. You can't create selfmod topics in Meta.

Post a single topic in Service Announcements. Services is for trades that take place entirely on this forum.

I suppose that he's busy with school. But I haven't talked to him.

2-of-3 multisig escrow is also possible in Bitcoin-Qt now, though it's a little complicated. I recommend multisig for large escrows.

Great picture of me!

I trusted him not to abuse his power. Mostly because he had much to lose and almost nothing to gain by doing so, not because I thought that he was particularly ethical. And I was right: he didn't abuse his power in any noticeable way.

No. That's not how the Trust system works. There's a reason why trust lists and trust ratings are separate. You can trust that someone is not a scammer but not trust them to have a good trust list, and vice-versa. Listing someone in your trust list indicates only that you like their ratings and/or trust list in some way (defined by you). With the default trust system, my goal is to maximize the number of default-trusted ratings while minimizing the number of incorrect ratings (especially negative ones). There haven't been any major failures in this area.

There actually isn't a way to vouch for someone in the trust system if you use it properly. There are only trust events which are interpreted by users, and trust list relationships which are mostly unrelated to real trust. This is why I kept my positive trust rating of TF even though my overall trust in him has diminished. My personal history with TF has not changed. My trust in him has diminished, but only because of how I am interpreting other trust events. My own history/rating is still relevant to the full picture of TF's trustworthiness in my mind, and it may still be relevant to others.

Your misunderstanding of how the trust system works is one reason why you are not in DefaultTrust.

No. The damage someone in DefaultTrust can do is very limited, so a lot of trust isn't required. I've actually long been suspicious of TradeFortress because he was holding too much BTC, CoinLenders looked like a HYIP, and I've heard some suspicious rumors about him. But I thought that he was very unlikely to go totally crazy with trust. (And he didn't.)

He was on DefaultTrust because his trust list was good. There were only a few problems that ever resulted from his list, but he brought many good people into the trust network. He also seemed to understand the trust system more than anyone else, and he paid the most attention to trust activity across the trust system.

Ask anyone on the default trust list (or any of the moderators) how well they know me... I don't need to be friends with people to identify them as good moderators or trust-list-builders.

Where'd you get that impression? I defended his Ripple-related actions once, and my opinion of that case hasn't changed. But I barely know him.

I'm not a sociable guy. There are few people in the Bitcoin community who I have any sort of casual relationship with. AFAIK, I've met a grand total of two forum users AFK.


It's provable via the block chain that that money hasn't been spent, and I don't even hold a lot of that money.

Which threads?

Seems pretty close, but that's too greedy (and expensive). Your regex sees this entire string (which is valid BBcode) as a match:

How the Ripple thing worked was that TF gave people a Ripple BTC debt instrument "worth" some BTC, but without any intention to pay. For the recipients to actually see this payment in their Ripple balances, they had to add TF as a trusted entity in Ripple. If they did this, their balance would seem larger, but part of it would actually be worthless. Additionally, Ripple would in some causes automatically trade other high-value assets in a Ripple "wallet" for additional worthless TF assets. In this way, some people lost real money, but this was rather rare, and TF compensated at least some of the affected people.

Just yours so far. (A CSRF.)

Vod is in the default trust network via Tomatocage and BadBear. I don't much want to remove those people from the default trust list, so you should complain to them.

You can see how someone got into your trust network by looking at the stuff at the bottom of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

You have unusual trust settings, or that was only temporary. sublime5447 is not in the default trust network.