|
Just an advice to OP
test the code first before making payment,I checked your signature and looks like they aren't fitting in your signature space.
Only nice designs aren't enough,there are limitations for each rank so these designs might not look like they were shown in submission images and any change in code to make them fit in signature space can change the design of signature that won't look like a design that won the prize.
Test the designs on multiple browsers and screen resolutions.
good luck OP
|
|
|
|
|
It was really a great contest with awesome submissions but the winning design by jayce was best,he deserved it.
but IMO some other users did great work like Neotox,radhwane,SFR10,Coinnosaurus,Superhitech and their designs are better then some winning designs of this contest.
|
|
|
|
|
OP should lock the topic since the deadline was 22 march.
|
|
|
|
lol you tried to copy design of other user
OP should disallow this
personally I like designs of radhwane,Avirunes,Neotox,SFR10 & jayce
good luck guys but try to make unique designs don't try to copy others idea
Shield, kindly send me the reference signature which was copied by radhwane. I'll remove him from the list if the evidence is supporting your claim. BTW, single entry isn't valid so that signature won't be listed anyways. leave it, it was just a message to radhwane and he understand what I said so close this matter. His designs are good and he deserve the prize for his hardwork if owner like them. |
|
|
|
~snip~
nice designs OSMIUMCOIN but useless, there are limitation for signatures my entry for senior and hero/legendary members
~image~
I think they won't fit in signature space,did you tested? Perhaps the allowed signature styling should change with activity score / membergroup. Like:
- Newbie: No styling (including links) allowed. Max 40 characters.
- Jr. Member: Links allowed. Max 100 characters.
- Member: Unlimited length.
- Full: Color allowed.
- Sr. Member: Size allowed
- Hero: Background color allowed
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBC code and smileys may be used in your signature. Signatures taller than 42px will be cut off.
Images are not allowed. As your member rank increases, you can use more types of styling in your signature, and your signature can be longer. Max 4000
|
|
|
|
well he is my entry another version for full member  goodluck lol you tried to copy design of other user OP should disallow this personally I like designs of radhwane,Avirunes,Neotox,SFR10 & jayce good luck guys but try to make unique designs don't try to copy others idea |
|
|
|
People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.
With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.
Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed. Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams. This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum Sorry, I don't think you're understanding me. I know forum accounts are allowed to be bought, frowned upon but allowed. Forum accounts that are bought have been linked back to their previous owners who scammed. This is what caused the issue over at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0No? Are you saying scammers can go along doing whatever they please as long as they create another account, fake the sale of the account used to scam and then say "you can't leave negative feedback because I bought this account" because the SEC log shows the password has been changed? Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't follow up on all these threads, just throwing my two cents in based on what I've actually seen so far. I am not supporting accounts sale and I am against it.I give negative trust to any high ranked sold account.but its not about the one negative trust given to linked thread but there are many others like this. |
|
|
|
People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.
With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.
Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed. Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams. This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new. |
|
|
|
|
People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.
With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.
|
|
|
|
As far I know bitmixer doesn't allow negative trust accounts but still there are few accounts enrolled,This campaign need to manually cleanup negative trusted accounts to make new slots for other users.Paying money to negative trust users is like supporting scammers.
Same thing happens for the bitmixer spammers. There are quite some of them that I have seen and some also that do not abide with their rules. Bitmixer is not checking their participants and I am surprised why they are not making any move against them and alsonot heard any complaints against them.  I agree there is list of some bitmixer spammers that need to be removed from campaign https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1378965.0 |
|
|
|
This is getting ridiculous now almost every thread made sees luptin having to remove or change his feedback, I agree with Heutenamos, i think its time blazed gets demoted to DT2
Yes being on DT, he should be careful when giving negative feedbacks and only do this when he is 100% sure with proofs |
|
|
|
|
As far I know bitmixer doesn't allow negative trust accounts but still there are few accounts enrolled,This campaign need to manually cleanup negative trusted accounts to make new slots for other users.Paying money to negative trust users is like supporting scammers.
|
|
|
|
discovercebu
1EjMchjQL6Q6QeX6D8ChvaGSPBVgAVgvU
That's a coinbase address, to my knowledge. Posting from wrong account? Discovercebu used to be enrolled in the crypto-games.net signature campaign. I'm not saying he is no alt of mexxer, I'm just saying the address posted here is a coinbase address. No, that bitcoin address isn't coinbase address Update: add brituspol to the list credit goes to Shield  |
|
|
|
|
post detailed information and proofs here
|
|
|
|
I have been finding alts of scammers but IMO if password of account changed and someone saying account was sold then giving negative with old proofs isn't a good idea.
So in your opinion if someone scammed in Nov. 2015 , and then decided to come back on his alt and said "I was sold this account by the owner." after a simple pass change you'd believe that? Someone a user sell one of their account and that used for scam it doesn't mean give negative to all accounts without any proof
Why not? Anyway there is ample proof(that has still not been disproved by any strong indication of an account sale, except a pass change) the account was originally under CEG's control. For all I know it still could be you have missed comments from account seller that was defending him. |
|
|
|
|
I have been finding alts of scammers but IMO if password of account changed and someone saying account was sold then giving negative with old proofs isn't a good idea.
Someone a user sell one of their account and that used for scam it doesn't mean give negative to all accounts without any proof
|
|
|
|
|
Both devthedev and unchi should discuss and reach to a final agreement that is good for both of you
|
|
|
|
I can only speculate, however it is possible that uchi saw that the domain was about to expire and saved the script and/or uchi used an archive of the website.
Ok so here's the story.
I originally created passphrase.io.
I sold the domain and license to use my script to devthedev.
A few weeks before the domain expired, I warned dev on two separate occasions that he needed to renew. Once via email and once via PM. I even offered to buy it back from him, but he ignored.
He allowed the domain to expire, and I bought it back.
Also, I think devthdev mentioned somewhere that he did buy the domain+hosting from someone else Well there you go. Devthedev probably didn't even realize that the domain was (about to) expire. he missed Unchi PM and email, as well as email from registrar I am not saying that uchi is in the wrong here, as he (has claimed to) warn Devthedev about the pending expiration. I would not say that devthedev is a scammer because he missed the deadline to renew a domain to a website that he was trying to sell. I agree looks like it was a mistake by devthedev to bumping his old topic without knowing domain no longer belongs to him but not a scam attempt |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
