I expected their to be a lot larger list compiled of valuable 2019 newbies than this but I guess they are more rare than some of us thought..
I "nominated" PopoJeff because it's the only new account I could think of that seemed like a legit user off the top of my head.. I didn't look into merit data or anything like that..

It is quite outstanding what the top nominees here, Ratimov and Rikafip, have been able to accomplish here in only around 6 months..
Has anyone asked them if they have ever posted on Bitcointalk prior to 2019?

I'll cast my vote eventually..

Everyone watching the superbowl and here I am watching the Chinese stock market open and CNY/USD plunging..

It's an interesting thought but what if they can't get the legislation through to actually pay off the student loans?
Even if they say they will, or want to, pay off student loans, do you think they could actually pull it off?
I have doubts..

I have been seeing reports of throwing "pets" out of high story windows, for fear they are carrying the virus, for a while before any suggestions that the CCP recommended such a practice..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220203.msg53747706#msg53747706

Yes..

Also note, their is nothing wrong with me or anyone else agreeing with you on one topic while simultaneously disagreeing with you on another..


I meant those trying to tag Kalemder, not you..


Start a rep thread on it bro.. I like your being drunk and knowing things but it's a bit OT here, though I would like to see that topic play out..

Are you referring to the research that suggests that this 2019-nCoV mainly attacks ACE2, of which Asians have have 500% more of in their lungs than do blacks or whites therefore leaving asians more succeptible to 2019-nCoV and also likely rending it more potentially lethal to them than others?
(Also more lethal/succeptible to males than females.)

"2019-nCov was reported to share the same receptor, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), with SARS-Cov."
"A comparison between eight individual samples demonstrated that the Asian male one has an extremely large number of ACE2-expressing cells in the lung."
"We also noticed that the only Asian donor (male) has a much higher ACE2-expressing cell ratio than white and African American donors (2.50% vs. 0.47% of all cells). This might explain the observation that the new Coronavirus pandemic and previous SARS-Cov pandemic are concentrated in the Asian area."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1.full

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3048295/men-may-be-more-prone-coronavirus-women-chinese-study-finds

Way to drop subtle hints @AbelBaricStevenson
Or has this been posted in this thread already and I missed it?

Yobit is not a clear-cut enough example of a "scam" for general consensus to be made easily on the situation.. (sorry, but it isn't)
A less debatable example of a "scam", like a proven ponzi, will get all tagged up before their is even time to debate about it..

I see this changing nothing as president going forward from here, but this as actually a good example of the community finding a conclusion..

This debate is probably responsible for the stopping of the Yobit campaign, and their has been plenty of exposure of the many examples of shadiness all around..

Well null was removed from DT for it quite quickly, so it kinda works..
Lauda on the other hand, won't be removed for the same action that would get nullius removed though so their's your DT compromises in action..

@Kalemder since I see you are around.. I don't think you will be removed from your signature campaign for these tags or be judged badly by most over them so no need to freak out or anything.. I think most including DarkStar_ will ignore it..


After all that bitching about targeting the Turks over the CM campaign, I don't know how you could make that any more suspicious..
Are you actually trying to lend their point further credence or rile them up some more??

Egregious levels of lying could be tagworthy to me but probably not all "white lies"..
Any amount of lies would be in my consideration of them though on deciding wither or NOT to ever give them positive trust or add them to my trust list..

What constitutes "Egregious levels of lying" unfortunately will always remain subjective and therefore debatable..

Would you be against tagging accounts that were advertising "24 Hour Bitcoin Doubler - Just Send To This Address" in their signatures, and refused to remove it after a warning?

What's wrong with advising him to either produce the evidence or remove the tag, otherwise likely be removed from DT?

Making a claim based on information he refuses to disclose is ridiculous..
As if we are supposed to trust nullius to be some sort of secret agent man with a security clearance where we should trust his claims without seeing the "sensitive" information ourselves because he is the only one good enough to see it..

If he wants everyone to agree with and support his tags he needs to produce this secret evidence because it does not stand on his questionable word alone..
i.e. Kalemder

When PMing with a user I often explicitly state that I expect my PMs to remain private and they are not to be published publicly without my express permission, but I don't always do so.
This is almost always followed with a response such as "Of course they will remain private and I expect the same." as if this is a well known common courtesy, but I admit that it is not a hard fast rule or completely adhered to by all.. The reason I state it at times is it ends the opportunity of interpretation otherwise by either of us..

That's why I in my last post here I added "if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private" because without such a statement of requested privacy sharing PM without permission is just a low blow dick move, but after such an agreed upon request of privacy to later breach that agreement I absolutely consider a breach of trust.. If any user that made this agreement with me later published my PMs without my permission they would most likely be getting a red tag from me depending on what they used my PMs for..

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive and I do not want to dislike you..
Rather I feel sorry for you and would like to avoid debating with YOU even over your own posts, but anyone else that uses or agrees with your non-factual posts are fair game..

I agree, it is a loophole around what should be common practice, but making a statement of expected privacy closes said loophole..


Not to me.. I may very well tag someone for breaching such an agreement with me, if an agreement was made thereby closing the loophole..

If nullius shared "sensitive" information with SM it is likely he asked for it not to be shared, thereby closing the loophole..
I can't know that though, but just the threat on its own is greasy..

I would consider that quite untrustworthy behavior indeed, especially if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private, or reasonably assumed so.. It could even be construed as trade-related danger IMO..


Why do you merit this shit that you know damn well is false?
I mean, unless you don't know..

Maybe try presenting your questions more clearly, and you can bump your topic after 24 hours of no replies if you would like it to get more views again..

It happens from time to time in "slam-dunk" cases..

Hey thanks

Well that was quicker and easier than I expected and I didn't even cast a vote yet..

I'm still looking for a good ref to evidence against Kalemder..
I don't understand it..


Vod has a very long history here of positive contributions despite the fact that he has gone off the rails lately..
Maybe SM doesn't see fit to remove/exclude him yet.. Also it is not like any of us agree with every opinion of those we include.. It is always some compromise.

Vod's tag is probably retaliation against TS for the OGnasty situation..

nutildah’s reference is a nothingburger.. All assumptions..

SM including Vod does not necessarily mean SM agrees with all Vods ratings..
As I said Vod has a long history of positive contributions therefore is harder to see him as net-negative.. You however have almost zero history and therefore the relativity of agree/disagree with you could be much higher...

Notice I haven't even excluded Vod despite calling out his recent shit because I hope he can get over himself yet..
I haven't even excluded you because I am conservative with my exclusions.. Yet..

I don't mean to directly accuse YOU of anything.. Sorry if it came off like that but I don't recall it having anything to do with anything you did..
It's about the concept..

I also respect and tend to mostly agree with your 2nd line I quoted there..



Speak up if you see it.. Bring attention to it.. Call out whatever you see for whatever it is..


Scam accusations=90
Major accusations=27

Yobit is a leading exchange in one aspect atleast..

lol good post


If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he wouldn't be using this case as a last stand so soon into his career here..

The odds aren't good for you here nullius..
You sure you want to go down in flames over your disagreement with TECSHARE's trust list?

Choose your battles more wisely.. <That is advice..

Using extremely weakly founded negative trust ratings to attack users you disagree with is how you make a fool of yourself..
Obvious motives behind negative ratings are obvious..

You can't beat him in a debate so you have to personally attack him or what?
That's what it looks like..

You want to stomp his ass? Do it with logic, not ad-hominems..