i also don't think it's right for anyone to promote them but i still think it's very cruel to leave feedback on the account of all campaign participants, neutral would be good A (temporary) negative accompanied by some short reasoning to leave the campaign: sure, some people may not be actively aware of all their forum actions but if they continue to market literal scams with awareness and intention, who else can be blamed? I'd say that anyone promoting a service should be willing to use it, and I'm fairly certain that the promoters of 1xbit wouldn't be willing to deposit their signature funds into the site.
Beyond everything else, feedback of all kinds are already sent extremely liberally due to the sheer size of DefaultTrust. Trust values have been diluted greatly and future behavior should either try to correct this or try to embrace it. The current mixture of shifting members is creates a range of weights when it comes to the network. |
|
|
|
|
Heard about all the recent discussion. Someone take my spot: I can't post more than 100 characters.
|
|
|
|
I don’t think it would be a very effective way of detecting money laundering (or attempting to do so). It's not, but wager requirements have been justified before with similar ideas and rhetoric. KYC before deposit would work better, though not perfectly either - for every solution, there's probably a workaround. Like I said, though, a little strange to deposit into a casino without the intention of betting.
I personally think the OP is less concerned about the wager requirement and more about the confirmation requirement. I wouldn't doubt they're still angry about certain other topics but it seems pretty stupid to continue playing at a place with which you have many complaints. |
|
|
|
That sure would be one way to combat people who use it as a money laundering platform. I've seen much more stringent wager requirements than 25%.  Shocking, gambling at a casino? |
|
|
|
Especially considering the fact that there is a warning for beginners that is visible even to unregistered users. It's unfortunate that you can't even be presented DefaultTrust metrics in boards where trust is visible. It's as if guests are stripped of the mere existence of the trust system until they decide to register. (but why would you do so for a single sale thread?) I still think this is a bug Just don't allow topics to move into Auctions without moderator support. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Many of the people complaining about news articles being posted are the same idiots who support Vod's spreading of lies, abuse of the trust system, and ultimately trying to extort me for $50,000,000.
Oh, right. I forgot you view every topic through the lens of your ongoing feud with someone who no longer posts here to carry on the dispute. Maybe get over it and stop allowing it to cloud your judgement on subjects which have nothing to do with that? I think everyone should give up the Karen act and quit criticizing those who do put forth an honest effort.
Clearly you and I have very different perspectives around what constitutes "effort". The entire point of this discussion is to define copypasta as "low-effort". None of your biases against other forum users are valid arguments to challenge that. If you have any relevant arguments to support the notion that copypasta somehow involves effort, feel free to present them. Otherwise, please find another topic in which to whine about Vod. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I get that people don't like it when their own bully act is turned around on them. Don't act like you don't appreciate the opportunity to respond to earn your little $1 for your spam though, which I might add has no value whatsoever unlike the news articles you are complaining about... We must have different views on a lot of things. For example, I think you are the signature spammer who is making valueless posts, not the people documenting articles in a specific format so those who search topics years from now can easily gather information about them. As for whining about Vod, I'm actually complaining about the hypocrisy of your spammer crew, not Vod's lunatic behavior that has been endorsed by them.  "I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I get that people don't like it when their own bully act is turned around on them. Don't act like you don't appreciate the opportunity to respond to earn your little $1 for your spam though" "We must have different views on a lot of things. For example, I think you are the signature spammer who is making valueless posts, not the people documenting articles in a specific format so those who search topics years from now can easily gather information about them." "As for whining about Vod, I'm actually complaining about the hypocrisy of you" Quoted by OgNasty of the Bitcointalk Forum in the topic above link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5370706.msg58622022#msg58622022What is really interesting about this post is that I need to think of a couple more words to get it padded enough and I can earn my signature money. Good enough for press, good enough for the forum. |
|
|
|
This isn't the first time this has been brought up or the only board with issues. The whole idea of Bitcoin Discussion being one of the shittiest boards on the Bitcoin forum should be a matter of grave concern for... someone, but apparently it isn't. When I think of Bitcointalk, for some reason, altcoins are at the forefront of the traffic and activity. I wonder: have we already crossed the point to where the noise-to-signal ratio overflowed into the negatives, and now we think everything is peachy? The forum will continue on, but what is the actual purpose of using it anymore, if not to spam, scam, or continue in circlejerk topics about nothing? As of this post, the list of rules has been viewed 736769 times, with a member count of 3398535. Bear in mind, those are not unique views. For some reason, the forum is most unfriendly to new users despite having removed the Newbie jail system years ago. As a guest, you can't view trust, and thus all marketplace threads (where trust is viewable and relevant) should ideally be blocked off to such users or have a giant warning that gives them prerequisite knowledge. Flags are the only preventative measure for this subset of users, and of those only the yellow ones could be applied without the existence of a victim. Once you sign up, you receive the great privilege of seeing DefaultTrust metrics but if you never learned about rules, trust, or anything that should have been taught immediately after registration, then once your seven-day grace period is up, you no longer see those yellow flags. I wonder if there should be some "remove type-1 flag" button that requires user confirmation, to indicate their experience and knowledge of the system, rather than an arbitrary time-based metric? Thankfully, we have an intuitive forum where all users are responsible for their stupidity when they can't find the rules or when they play at websites that everyone (but them) knows is a scam or become frustrated, spam, and banned when they finally do learn about the convoluted mess that is Bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
Gobble, gobble.
53 - actmyname
|
|
|
|
Funny it still remains open... inviting more necroposting There's a necropost warning, at least. Ideally, most threads should stay open and prevent redundancy with frequent use of the search feature - new questions can be directed to older topics with everchanging forum dynamics. |
|
|
|
If I am banned for that, it confirms I shouldn't be wasting a single nother second of my time here anyway. Not like a ban does anything to anyone who has enough perseverance anyway. If you were so inclined, you could make alts at any time - the forum is quite free. If you wanted to, you could even post self-modded, locked, scam threads and flood the board: oversaturating the market is one way to stop those scammers from entering. Of course, I don't mean real "scams" because I clearly lack the discretion to determine the truth: after all, even staff members can't do that! A welcome message would be nice to have. Or DefaultTrust ratings for guest users. |
|
|
|
Do you know that from experience or do you just assume it should be like that? Inaccurate information that stimulates a completely illogical and unnecessary discussion is definitely something I report, but always with evidence that confirms it. Most often, it is the description of "general or vague content" that categorizes most of the reports I have made. It is undoubtedly trivial to create some thoughtless remark about the price of bitcoin, along the lines of, "the bitcoin price is volatile and [pad] no one really knows how to predict [pad]." It is also commonplace to see any "agree and repeat" posts, merely paraphrasing the quoted response (usually of the same post quality). And let us not forget the massive effort required to copy paste + source, or to list a couple crypto symbols as good investments in those "what's a good coin?" threads. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like someone pretended they were someone else, used an alt, scammed you with fake escrow messages, and that's the brunt of it.
buck has as much to do with this as a golden windmill at the bottom of the sea: he's pretty deep doing fuck-all.
|
|
|
|
There's also this: I do want to hear the thoughts of people who can't speak perfect English (click the quote for context) Is it always going to be give and take give? Mark scams? No, because there an innocent person may be falsely marked. Trust system? Yes, but only if you're signed in. Any rules upon signup? No, because... Delete ponzis? No, because we can't tell! Report spam? No, because they might just have poor English. *New forum? We're working on it... Flags are great! Except, the ones matter can only be used after the scam happens. *even if the context pertains to P&S this should extent forum-wide |
|
|
|
What's the point? Can you name one road that was never used by a criminal? May good fortune be with you, may your guiding light be strong - LZ
Bitcoin is private enough already and no one IRL can trace your bitcoins unless you're stupid enough to moan about how many Bitcoins you own and prove to people around you. You can choose to believe this, just as you choose to fawn and obsess over someone who calls themselves nutildah online. In fact, the degree of obsession is to an extent where I would be partial to believing you are a nutildah alt for the purpose of ego masturbation as opposed to someone trolling them. I wonder: when you don't get enough attention, do you always dick-ride others until they provide it? |
|
|
|
some.some high rollers who bet 5 btc in a single bet many times.is they count?i wasnt know that they will post such complicated bonus in theire TOS for which we have to read dictionaries to understand them. The screenshot you provided just looks like promotional material and is not equivalent to any rigorous Terms of Service agreement which you probably had to directly accept with a prompt. How could you possibly argue in good faith when the "terms" would be completely vague except for some arbitrary metric of 'high roller' and whatever 'up to 10%' means. It's like going to court over casual agreements relating to an upcoming contract in writing. |
|
|
|
That doesn't resolve much. The promise of rewards is just that: they are not guarantees. In particular, the language of "up to" gives a range that includes zero. In my eyes, the marketing is equivalent to, "we provide bonuses of 10% lossback to some high roller users," with the keyword being some. |
|
|
|
|
How's this? You can send transactions to the bars with a locktime set two years from the broadcast date.
Use the technology we're given!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
