In my post
Seriously though, it's up to any potential trade partner to make apply their own judgement of the feedback on an account. I used neutral so it's a warning without harsh consequences. That may change in the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ratimov doesn't return.

I'd say: "it depends". User yogg went from +32 / =0 / -0 a year ago to #  +13 / =0 / -43 now. This means the majority of DT removed their positive feedback.
On the other hand, there's this account, where RHavar left positive feedback in 2016, and negative feedback in 2019. This way, it shows a timeline of events and going from trusted to untrusted.

It's more that I don't think the old feedback still applies.

Agreed I love democracy

Neither. There is no such thing as being "overly bullish" when it comes to Bitcoin.

I considered it, but I also try to be conservative with negative feedback. For now, I think 2 DT-negatives are already a strong warning for anyone not to deal with the account.
We'll see if the sponsorship-thing turns into a Flag by one of the winners next month. If it's created, I'll probably Support it.

That's change, and that's normal. But: your transaction included 3 inputs. If you would have used Coin Control, you could have picked only the largest inputs instead of consolidating all of them. That would have lead to a smaller transaction, and saved money on fees. Coin Control means manually choosing which inputs you use. You can do this for instance in Electrum or Bitcoin Core.

It depends: you could save on the transaction fee, at the risk of not getting through. And ViaBTC counts bytes instead of vbytes, which means 3 inputs may or may not be above the 500 byte limit already. It won't be faster than paying a high fee, but it will be faster than waiting for fees to drop if you paid a low fee.

No. Paid transaction accelerators are a last resort: it's definitely (much) more expensive than paying a high enough on-chain transaction fee, using RBF or using CPFP.

Don't believe everything you read online. That would make it over 200 million people, which is 4 times more than the number of funded Bitcoin addresses.

I don't know.

Only if you move them in one transaction. It sounds like you should learn how Bitcoin transaction inputs work, looking around on a block explorer may help.

You're late to the party. At current fees, it's not the right time to consolidate small inputs.

Spammers already pay $40 to create dust transactions. How high do you want to set the minimum fee?

I left Ratimov (now Symmetrick^*) neutral feedback:
I had to squeeze it to fit the 600 character limit.

For anyone who left Ratimov positive feedback in the past: Let me put it this way: would you trust Ratimov again now? I think "trading with this person is high-risk" applies at the moment, and for that, changing historic positive feedback can help protect others.

^* Normally, I respect name changes for privacy, but in this case, I don't think it's right to change your username right before you abandon the English boards and shortly after that stop posting entirely.

Side question: why do you use it if it's not recommended?

My advice: get a wallet that supports Coin Control. If possible, select an input that doesn't require any change.

That being said: if you have 0.0016 Bitcoin in your wallet, you should probably not spend it at all if fees take up 20% of that amount. Just wait for better times.

You are correct. I noticed ViaBTC's accelerator availability indeed varies during the day.

It can be changed, there's a tickbox:

The sites will be banned from Bitcointalk, which means [banned site] covers it.

Except for linking all your visits to a certain website, which is bad for privacy.

The default of Tor browser is a lot better: it doesn't store cookies:

The privacy risk involves more than just "other sites": it includes not telling any site that you've visited it before.
In short: cookies are bad for privacy, no matter what's in there.

That's because they're not coins at all, they're tokens:
The interesting part is: theymos posted this on the Tokens (Altcoins) board.

We may need a "Tokens (Bitcoin)" board for this. But at the moment, that would make it look if Bitcointalk is encouraging the blockchain spam. I'd say we need that board once there's a real-world application for Bitcoin Tokens.

That would be my guess. And it instantly shows a flaw: the URL is still visible in an image. Many ANN topics use images to display the content, so maybe they should be wiped too. Or at least from the OP of locked threads.

Correct. And there it's called dust. Or spam. Let's say I start calling one of my inputs "My Precious". Even though that input is on the Bitcoin blockchain, it makes no sense to create topics about My Precious on the Bitcoin boards.

Feel free to cry all you want about me in my reputation thread.

It shows he doesn't use his Trust list to retaliate on those users. Why would you even bring that up?

Really? People come looking for privacy but don't wipe the cookies from their Tor browser?

Have you tried it recently? They changed to a new captcha not so long ago, after which the transaction accelerator was available most of the hour. It used to tell me I beat 95% of the users with the captcha. Now, it tells me I beat 8% of the captcha, and the accelerator is instantly unavailable. So I can only conclude bots fill it up. Maybe someone created a paid service that relies on ViaBTC.

That's true, but I'd argue it's irrelevant. They have no meaning on the Bitcoin blockchain other than "Bitcoin dust". The "meaning" comes from whatever a third party made up.

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you have 20 small inputs, it's best to wait. If you want to make a small payment, any low-fee altcoin can do.
I hate seeing Bitcoin this unusable!

Sure. Or find a topic where it fits better.