Hey Look Approxilite. Your alt account is not going to have its ban lifted. Also, I would advise that you do not post with your other alt accounts either. Here is how I linked your alt account to the banned account that you are so concerned about.

archived

archived

archived

archived

Shall we continue to link all of your alts? I came across some others. However, it's getting late and I'm going to bed.

Meh, I transferred what I could. Unfortunately, one of my withdrawal requests did not go through and I have to open a support ticket. (The exchange was cryptobridge. So much for "decentralized exchange." )

Copy and pasting whole sentences without any reference links is not allowed. You don't need to copy/paste a whole article.

    As long as people post things with their own words, this forum is cool with that. This forum isn't going to insist on references for everything, like Wikipedia. Although providing links in your posts can make your post even better. This forum does discourage word spinning(changing the order of clauses, replacing a few words with synonyms and/or combining clauses of multiple sources) and can permaban someone for that. Usually the word spinners have just enough of the original text(s) to get caught.

     If it is temporary ban, you should just wait. You can try to appeal your case if you feel that the reason for your temporary ban is in error. Also, it is important that during your temporary ban that you also do not post with a new account or an alternate account. If you get caught, your temporary ban will transform into a permanent ban.

   Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is how it works. The moderators will not remove negative trust. The only way to get negative trust removed is to have the person who left it, remove it. You could also attempt to figure out which default trust one member(s) added him to their trust, and have the member(s) remove him. Or you can convince one of the DT1 members exclude him. However, I don't think this strategy is going to bode well for you, either.

Edit: Just as expected. OP gets the booby prize of additional red trust from DT2 member. 

Trust is not "moderated." The only way that you can get the negative trust removed is to convince Vod to remove it. Please note that AFAIK, insulting Vod is not going to help your slim chances of getting him to remove it. Also, if you attempt to invoke "countermeasures" such as leaving him fake bad trust or making legal threats, that strategy won't work either. I don't think kissing his ass will work either, though....

Yes but let us say you are a beginner and post 23 posts in the 1st period and 5 posts in the 2nd period. Once the second period is complete, your activity will go up to 28. I personally have over 4000 posts. At this point, for every period that I make even one additional posts, my activity will go up by 14 points for that period.

     There you go. Now pay it forward. 

     Well, they are not a good "investor" if they do not do their due diligence and keep up with the risks of their investment. The very fact that BTC is very volatile and has returned an insane amount of return since it's inception should give any good investor a clue that this is risky. (I mean we went from 10000 BTC buying a pizza to 1 being worth ~20000 USD at it's ATH)
     I for one have only invested a very small amount in BTC and cryptocurrency in general. However, I have kept myself informed on what is going on. If someone is going to mortgage their house and not devote a 10th of the time that I have spent attempting to learn about it, then they are a gambler and not really an investor.

     Are you talking about the one discovered a few months ago or the one in 2010? What is amazing with the recent one is that the exploit was in the code for quite a bit of time and no miner exploited it. I'm happy the BU developer did the right thing and reported the exploit rather than give it over to one of the Bitcoin Cash advocates.
     Just so you know, no miner in their right mind would have exploited this unless their motive was to destroy cryptocurrency as a whole. Most miners are in it for the profit and such a move would have killed the golden goose. Besides, if a miner had exploited the recent bug, the BTC developers and other miners would have just did something similar to what happened in 2010. (Although the 2010 bug was unlike this bug, since I believe the old bug was triggered by accident and not by deliberate intent.) In 2010, they came up with the patch and eventually the corrected chain had the most work and reorged the bad chain out of existence.
    BTW: I would recommend that you don't use this thread that you created to try and launch a troll campaign against BTC. As soon as you start to derail this thread to fall off-topic, the moderators will probably lock it.

The 1000 that I got was just from being a Legendary member, like the 250 that you got. The 226 additional was just people being nice to me.  

Samples of High quality posts from OP




Attention ALL MERIT SOURCES: PLEASE GO TO THESE SAMPLE POSTS AND GIVE THE OP 50 MERITS RIGHT AWAY!

I would myself, but I don't feel like it.

     Well, there are "chicks with dicks." However, I'm not certain if we should call them dudes or chicks or "they." I remember when it was just LGBT, but now it's looking like a really good password generated by a password manager.

     Unfortunately, I have some dust on various exchanges and won't be able to accomplish the goal of every single satoshi.   Either I do not have enough to cover the fee or it falls below the minimum withdrawal. I don't want to end up spending more in fees to extract dust by making a deposit.

   Well quite frankly, Igotspots had quite a few people that didn't care much for him. I don't think the only motive was pure profit. (However, they did make away with a tidy sum from Bittrex who was the victim exchange, I believe.)I think they also wanted to destroy another one of his coin. They succeeded.
   One of the main problems with many POS coins, IMHO, is that your really don't need to have 51% of the coins to have 51% of the stake. Many exchanges do not stake the coins, since that is frowned upon. Also, if we were to implement POS on BTC, many people are unwilling to keep their balance on a hot wallet and have their coins in cold storage. I realize that many coins have implemented other forms of POS like dPOS to mitigate this. However, those schemes seem to introduce their own problems, such as overly centralizing the coin.

     The only reason that I can see is that the person holding the 51% of the stake is when they see that their is enough liquidity for them to dump the vast majority of their coins, twice. They can first send their coins to one enchange, dump. And then in short order they can introduce their new chain, double spend the coins by sending to another exchange or even the same exchange and dumping the coins again. I was involved in a Igotspots coin, where someone did just that. However, I think the main problem with the Igotspots coin is that he had made it that you needed a minimum stake weight in order to stake, which caused the difficulty to plummet. There may have been more problems involved.

     Why do you want to impede people from announcing their new coins that they created? There are many reasons someone may want to use a fresh account to announce their new altcoin. I realize there is a great deal of shitcoins that are created. Most are just scams and schemes. However, the great thing about cryptocurrency is that it is permissionless. Besides, all this would encourage is account sales. I would rather have a coin be announced by a fresh account than some account that someone bought with "legendary" status that they didn't really earn.

    Bitcointalk already tried to implement a "karma" system that was abandoned. The problem with a karma system that gives out negative merit is that whistleblowers are likely to accumulate a bunch of negative karma when they take on the perpetrators. We should not punish people here with decreased functionality just because they spout out unpopular opinions. We already have a trust system in place, anyway. I really do not believe we need to compound the "scarlet letter" that these negative trust member already have with decreased functionality. Some of the big negative trust members are actually good posters and are still capable of giving valuable input.