Come on... all the inefficiencies nostalgic features and convoluted systems and interfaces anti-spam and decentralized trust solutions are just either ancient forum software SMF intricacies or post-scam preventative measures necessities in this decentralized space! Maybe when the forum is updated more often than the April Fool's joke epochtalk is finished. Oh well, you know what they say: if you don't like the forum, fuck off leave.

Spam posting can be followed algorithmically: sample experiment

Low-depth thread: take from some general knowledge or any previous post and revise a few words here and there. If the length is not sufficient, simply repeat the same position using synonyms or add unnecessary padding.

Medium-depth thread: take from some surface-level discovery or agree with a previous post, restating the same ideas and adding a sliver of a vague opinion.

High-depth thread: what are you doing here?

---

For those that are aimed at high frequencies of postings, they will want to look toward simply-titled threads with 10+ pages. In these spam megathreads, one can simply read from the title, craft a response without reading the thread, and post their reply without a second thought. It's not as if anyone is going to read it, anyway!

Yes, you are correct.

Anyway, in other news...

How come you're so obsessed with homosexuality?

---

You're free to start your own forum with your own moderating staff. I'm sure you'll keep all of the "please donate to me" threads active.

This is an applied exercise of my freedom of speech [/quote]

Beyond all of that, when you first enter the forum, are you ever told, "hey, by the way: read these rules, make sure that you don't associate ranks with trust, and learn about our forum systems"?

Hmph.

---

I believe that you should share these techniques. If they are effective, then others can implement them and you will have exponential effects. If the fear is of scammers learning about these techniques, then consider the duality: you are unaware of the techniques of which both prospective scammers and scam-busters have knowledge. Perhaps the secrecy is for naught: could scam-busting techniques be disclosed and shared amongst scammers? However, what is easier? Evading 20+ strategies and bolstering your OPSEC, or collectively using scam-busting techniques on those with less-than-perfect OPSEC, where even a passing mistake is archived and potentially linked to multiple accounts?

On a level playing field, it's a lot easier being the one having to throw the dodgeballs.

Defaulting to show the link as-is vs. being able to redirect any text via the = affix. Better for transparency to default without any text transformation.

Example: I want to show someone a website. I link [url]google.com[/url].
Example: I want to show someone a thread on BCT, but the URL is very long. [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5275075.0]Thread Title[/url]

---

(I note that the bbcode automatically changes the [url=http://<regularLink>]<regularLink>[/url] into [url=http://regularLink]<regularLink>[/url] once you have it in the right format.)

Get ready for the "here's why I'm wrong" bull run.

Nice flash sale on Bitcoin, I appreciate it Elon.

Taken as a don't bite the hand that feeds strategy perhaps. An economy of services requires multiple parties for an exchange, after all.

Though considering the number of guest users is a magnitude higher than that of the logged-in users and that you can expect a large chunk of the latter to be the sig-spam type, unless you are a prospective whale client, the impact of you hiding signatures is equivalent to simply skimming over the ad as most are apt to do. I'm sure you don't notice half of the signatures when you are reading through a thread: it should be analogous to forgetting passing faces on the street.

bump, with one free random image per cache

Exactly. All billionaires are mandated to register with the Public Poverty Project, ensuring that all individuals are unable to attain any amount of wealth. Such is the world as it was crafted.

Dealing in absolutes is easy. Harder to rigorously define those terms before use.

I always thought governments akin to companies that have gone beyond notions of 'efficiency'. Groupings of individuals lead to interesting things with mixed results, whether you think statelessness^* is good or not. Creating an amalgamation of individuals to progress toward some ideal can always have unintended consequences - it's all a matter of how one structures power in different ways at the end of the day.

The association of bad campaigns with spam posts is not necessarily a bad thing.

Take heed of the origin of such notoriety - the likely result of a low-input (economically and functionally) campaign should be prejudiced against considering the lack of oversight. Any newly-minted token/coin campaign requires even less consideration than ones offered in the Services section: with low expectations from the campaign participants, low risk from the managerial side, and an oversaturated market and board, you have chimeras of spam waiting to be created in the alt boards.

YoBit is an another example, serving as an exchange that you would almost certainly never recommend - certainly, if the campaigns were managed with such passivity then one wonders about the quality of the platform itself. There is some truth in price denoting quality: an advertiser that can pass the threshold to launch a larger campaign must certainly have a feasible product, and the capacity to increase the budget should have some relationship with their overall growth.

Faced with a questionable act, instead of looking for alternative explanations, the most logical proceeding was to assign blame to others and to strengthen your pre-established conclusion.

Is it possible that the moderators review the reports first, and then delete them? Is it possible that you are posting on a non-public platform that has rules, enforced at the discretion of the post-deleting moderators?

---

Projection is not the way to go if you're getting posts deleted for spam. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Any cost > 0.

Why would you bother paying the cost of a campaign via fees and the currency itself when you could just mint your own tokens to accomplish the same objective? Infinitely more efficient.

Businesses are large structures with many points of failure and thus any smart group would use plausible deniability at every step, pushing it away from associating with the entirety of the image rather than a one-off employee incident or otherwise.

This clause is also something of interest.

"13.9.    If you are unsatisfied with any matter relating to a bet with BETOP.GG, please notify BETOP.GG within 7 days in writing after the transaction has occurred. Notifications made after the 7 day period will be disregarded. In the unlikely event of a discrepancy between the result that appears on your device and the results in the transaction logs in our system, you agree that the results in our system's transaction logs verified by an officer of BETOP.GG shall be final, conclusive and binding."

I'm a fan of seeing these "casino overrules everything" pieces of ToS.

Whatever the case is, the day we find a way to quantitatively measure the degree of spam and impose absolute thresholds for users, we would probably be living in a time where such a process would be irrelevant for curbing spam.

The rules are already wrapped with the moderator discretion clause to allow for the discretion concerning grey, fuzzy definitions. If someone has a better wrapper for such a system of rules then they should be working on much greater and grander designs than arguing about something related to administrating a Bitcoin forum.

Nice to recall this post.

Unfortunately for users that can't see the type-1 flags, the yellow banner is the only active one on that thread. I assume that if a type-2/3 flag shows up, then there might be another switch. Would be nice to find out!

Still have any of those collectibles you bought? You couldn't possibly post a picture of just a single one of those, confirming the current date, right? How about anything in 2019 or earlier for identity verification, just so you can cast away those account transfer doubts?

Outgoing transactions do not signify any transfer of value except across addresses: you cannot determine the identity of the recipient merely from the fact that address A sent to address B.

Splitting coins is common: if I use a $1000 bill (arbitrary) on a $5 transaction, there is still a large txinput being used but the actual output is unknown except to the sender and recipient (if unique).