Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2019, 12:56:58 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 158 »
921  Other / Meta / Re: [To Theymos] Why was Goat banned? on: October 24, 2012, 09:52:59 PM
Honestly, this surprises me. Maybe I just haven't read many Goat threads, but, where has he been actively disruptive? Are there deleted posts recently that I'm just not seeing?

I do agree that Goat isn't the greatest person on this forum, but he shouldn't be banned permanently just for that. Not to mention, he's tied up pretty deeply in both the Pirate situation and GLBSE. Has he ever received a warning ban? I know that he's been warned plenty of times, but was he ever banned for a few days?

When you perma-banned Rarity for the same reason, I thought "Ok, Rarity has never really contributed much and I don't see much of a future for him here. I guess perma-ban is acceptable". But I really don't think that is the case here. Theymos, you're really starting to get a little heavy on the banhammer. What happened to the Theymos that we'd beg to have perma-ban someone but would absolutely do nothing more than a few day ban for the first request? Speaking of requests, you didn't mention this ban at all in the Staff forum. When you ban someone fairly high-profile without a request from a staff member, please at least have the courtesy to inform us moderators.
922  Economy / Goods / Re: Outdoor Bunker / Paracord Planet / Other sites for BTC on: October 23, 2012, 03:03:05 AM
Marketplace / Goods seemed to be an appropriate place for this.  Just trying to make more things available in bitcoin.

Not, sure what is 'Chinese' about it??
I apologize, but I was under the impression from your past posts that these were Chinese companies. My mistake.
923  Economy / Goods / Re: Outdoor Bunker / Paracord Planet / Other sites for BTC on: October 23, 2012, 02:35:22 AM
^what is this? Intelligent SPAM?
Nope, just Chinese.
924  Other / Meta / Re: Censorship on Bitcointalk on: October 22, 2012, 09:48:23 PM
Quote
Rarity, for trolling. All he's been doing is wasting everyone's time. He never listens to reason, even to the point where most of our regular trolls give up:
Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 10, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
I'm happy with this. Far as we're concerned the matter may rest.
Quote from: Rarity on October 10, 2012, 04:01:16 PM
Quote
I'm not going to keep responding to these ridiculous accusations based on rumors and assumptions.

Sounds like you just admitted to them all, just with the caveat that you were going to stop the lies and lies of omissions later if you got a sucker on the hook.  Sure you would have.  Sure!
He also went on to make a total mockery of the scammer tag system:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117590.0

It's to the point that I can only believe that he is doing this on purpose. Theymos, I know that you have a conflict of interest here because Rarity has been debating you regarding GLBSE, so feel free to let him know that I made this request. Also, if someone else could second this, that'd be great.

This is a clear admission Rarity was banned for criticizing Theymos.  Rarity made that post in response to Theymos admitting he did not reveal everything in his sale post, and claiming that he would have done so later in the sale.  Why the hell should an unbiased observer take Theymos at his word on that?  The only evidence of Rarity "not seeing reason" is not believing Theymos?  Who wanted GLBSE to remain an illegal market?  Who is now doing nothing but sniping from the sidelines while Nefario sends out refunds?

And why is Rarity making a mockery of the scammer tag system by complaining that a written contract on these forums was broken?  It seems more a mockery that Dank was allowed to get away with it and continues to solicit donations towards his music as if he were capable of playing any.

And if "mocking the scammer tag system" is worthy of banning, do you intend to ban dank for turning the thread about his deceptive breach of contract into a discussion of how illegal drugs cure cancer which is caused by a weak soul?

Of course not, you are just making a weak excuse for being caught red handed trying to shut down a critic of the administrator. 
See:
Again, there was no problem with any single post (except for a few here and there that were dealt with), rather it was the overall picture that resulted in the ban.
925  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: [ATTN] Mt.Gox stole my transaction fee, hence TX stuck on: October 22, 2012, 09:19:19 PM
  • Use A Green Address
  • Pay 0.005BTC Fee For Faster Processing
These are contradictory. You should only use one of those. Only check the green address box if the destination trusts the MtGox green address. If they do, they will process the transaction immediately, so you don't need to worry about a fee. On the other hand, if a destination doesn't trust a MtGox green address, checking the first box will only delay your transaction. In that case, use ONLY the fee for faster processing.
926  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: The Trendon Shavers Saga continues... on: October 22, 2012, 05:14:00 AM
I'm going to need a consus as to which individual is must suited and going to follow through with the call. I'm also ready to show a larger screenshot of the email to the right person. Maged?

~Bruno K~
Again, I don't see the point. I have no reason to doubt that the email is real.

The offer was more in line with showing the complete contact information, and not necessarily proving it's real.

~Bruno K~
I guess. But I won't do much with it other than a basic internet-based check.
927  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: The Trendon Shavers Saga continues... on: October 22, 2012, 05:05:17 AM
I'm going to need a consus as to which individual is must suited and going to follow through with the call. I'm also ready to show a larger screenshot of the email to the right person. Maged?

~Bruno K~
Again, I don't see the point. I have no reason to doubt that the email is real.
928  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ultraprune merged in mainline on: October 22, 2012, 05:00:43 AM
I'm not worried that it won't be added now. I was just concerned that such a simple upgrade path didn't appear to have been considered, because statements like that would have usually added a mention that those commandline options will not be needed by release in order to avoid a full re-download.
It's been considered and discussed, including trade-offs between upgrading in a way that allows switching back to old versions (but requiring a lot of extra disk space) or cleaning up... or offering a choice at first start up.

You're reading too much into a technology and development announcement. This isn't release notes. Tongue
Glad to hear it.
929  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ultraprune merged in mainline on: October 22, 2012, 04:19:39 AM
I've just merged my "ultraprune" branch into mainline (including Mike's LevelDB work).

Does this require downloading and re-processing the blockchain from the beginning?

Yes.  However, to save downloading, you may provide
Code:
-loadblock=DATA_DIR/blk0001.dat -loadblock=DATA_DIR/blk0002.dat

to import the old data files into the new bitcoin database backend (ultraprune/leveldb).

* "DATA_DIR" should be replaced with the directory where your blockchain was stored in <= 0.7.1.
It doesn't do this automatically? It really should before this is officially released. You could even just add them as implied bootstrap.dat files.
I'm sure 0.8 will do this (and more!). Seriously, we just released 0.7.1 (from master)... 0.8 is at LEAST a month off (probably longer). Git master isn't supposed to be end-user friendly and go-for-production right now. If you need something stable, use a release!

(I'm not necessarily addressing you specifically, just the general "omg it's crazy broken" sentiment I've seen lately)
I'm not worried that it won't be added now. I was just concerned that such a simple upgrade path didn't appear to have been considered, because statements like that would have usually added a mention that those commandline options will not be needed by release in order to avoid a full re-download.
930  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: The Trendon Shavers Saga continues... on: October 22, 2012, 04:12:54 AM
No reason for a screenshot, since that is just about as easy to fake as a copy/paste. The only way you could prove it is by letting someone access your email account. That way, that person would only need to trust Yahoo. That being said, I highly doubt that this is something that needs that kind of assurance, so just post it.

I don't own photoshop and don't even know how to superimpose an image onto another, but I can post a screenshot that should prove that it's real. It'll be here in a couple minutes.

~Bruno K~
You don't need photoshop to alter an email. Just post the text, redacting whatever you want. It's fair to say that we can just trust you.
931  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: The Trendon Shavers Saga continues... on: October 22, 2012, 04:06:02 AM
No reason for a screenshot, since that is just about as easy to fake as a copy/paste. The only way you could prove it is by letting someone access your email account. That way, that person would only need to trust Yahoo. That being said, I highly doubt that this is something that needs that kind of assurance, so just post it.
932  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ultraprune merged in mainline on: October 22, 2012, 03:02:28 AM
I've just merged my "ultraprune" branch into mainline (including Mike's LevelDB work).

Does this require downloading and re-processing the blockchain from the beginning?

Yes.  However, to save downloading, you may provide
Code:
-loadblock=DATA_DIR/blk0001.dat -loadblock=DATA_DIR/blk0002.dat

to import the old data files into the new bitcoin database backend (ultraprune/leveldb).

* "DATA_DIR" should be replaced with the directory where your blockchain was stored in <= 0.7.1.
It doesn't do this automatically? It really should before this is officially released. You could even just add them as implied bootstrap.dat files.
933  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: October 22, 2012, 01:24:22 AM
I would like to make an announcement of new service in Project Development section (http://merchant.bitutils.com/)
I'm one of the first members and had discussion with Gavin and Satoshi at early stages of development: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179
Whitelist me please.
Wow! Welcome back!
934  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Possible security issue with blockchain.info (plaintext password) on: October 20, 2012, 09:25:26 PM
Of course it's plain text. Everything except for the storage of the wallet that is encrypted with that password is done client-side.
935  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Scammer tag: Nefario. on: October 20, 2012, 03:39:44 AM
Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

So you don't think that Nefario's actions toward BitcoinGlobal shareholders were worthy of the scam tag?
Nope. He was and remains CEO, so he has the sole authority on how to run the company unless/until a shareholder vote says otherwise. If he were properly removed as CEO and didn't hand the entire site, it's databases, and any business funds in his possession to his successor, then he'd be a scammer. In fact, you guys have/had the ability to do this on your own, without his cooperation. Thus, you could argue that any shareholder that refuses to vote to remove Nefario is a scammer. So far, this hasn't been requested.

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

Are you sure you agree with Goat? As far as you've said you think Nefario doesn't deserve a scammer tag at all. Goat thinks he does, just not for the same reasons I do, which is fine.
However, those other reasons were rejected/not decided upon. If you are willing to say that Nefario delisting anybody deserves a scammer tag, and theymos agrees, I will drop this whole argument. I want theymos to agree so that I may use this as precedent in future investigations.

There may be other reasons for Nefario to have a scammer tag but since he already has one it's largely academic at this point.
Exactly! I could care less about Nefario, I'm just worried about the precedent this will cause. Thus, this really is just academic. That being said, you'll need to clarify those other reasons.

Also, are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't been so quick to dismiss claims of you conspiring with Nefario earlier. Given things I have found out about others, I'm beginning to wonder if there's things about you we don't know. I do get the feeling that you're trying to protect something by trying to pressure me into removing the tag, but I don't think it's your reputation.
Yes, and as you know, I already answered this. Honestly, the fact that you asked this again in almost the same manner as some of our trolls shows that you're starting to act irrational. Trust me, as a friend, from my own experience with this case: take a break from scammer investigations for a day or two. Totally block out this forum in your preferences during that break to allow you to clear your thoughts. I'm only telling you this because that is exactly what I did.

You ruined your own reputation when you tried to force goat to take illegal actions in order to avoid getting a scammer tag (so Nefario wouldn't get it). Coercing someone to take illegal actions in order to protect Nefario is pretty scummy, and I'm glad others called you out on it before I had to step in, and also threatening to ban Goat for lying (when you didn't even know if he was).
Yes, I know. I realized that I was acting irresponsibly and did the only proper thing I could: Step down from the case. I'm disappointed that you didn't call me out privately on the matter earlier, though. I would have listened.

Then after you bowed out, you tried to secretly insert yourself back into the process for the sole and only purpose of denying the tag. Not even to give it out, just to deny it. And I turned you down saying it would look fishy, and it looks fishy that you even tried. Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" Roll Eyes.
And I agreed, which is why I requested that both you and theymos approve my request to reclaim veto power. Just to be clear, because you denied that request (which I explicitly said you could), I am only acting as a regular user in this case. I would appreciate it if I were treated that way.

You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part. 
As for the reason for the request, I later realized (after I had some time to cool down and get ahold of myself) that in my irrational fit, I irresponsibly gave sole authority for the scammer tag to a single person. No one - not me, not you, not even theymos - should have that authority on their own. The point of having one person investigate while the other person has to approve the decision of the investigator that a scammer tag is needed is to both provide another layer of removal from the case so that only the facts are focused on and to prevent one person's irrationality from deciding the case, since if someone is rational most of the time (as a human, it is impossible to always be rational), the chances that at least one person is rational at the time is significantly higher. It's for this reason that I believe that theymos, although he has the ability, should never ban or mark someone as a scammer on his own, unless the case is extremely clear. I'd be interested in what theymos' position on this is, since I don't know whether restricting bans and tags to administrators was done to intentionally create this dynamic, or if he just doesn't trust us. Either way, I'm glad that he set the system up the way he did.

Also, for the record, in neither of these cases did I send a request to theymos to mark someone as a scammer. I may have said that I would, even directly to theymos, but I never did because I always double-check my line of thinking before actually doing that. If I had the ability to do it myself, I also wouldn't have used it at those points.
936  Other / Off-topic / Re: Nefario ran his payment script twice on: October 20, 2012, 02:25:14 AM
Morally, I don't see a problem with people keeping the extra 10% so that they are fully paid out, but they shouldn't keep any more than they were owed. Just don't spend it for a while, just in case GLBSE can't pay out everyone 100% anymore, because the difference might need to be clawed back.
937  Bitcoin / Important Announcements / Re: GLBSE has been closed on: October 19, 2012, 03:30:00 AM
Some payments were erroneously sent out twice:
So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j

It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118354.msg1282045#msg1282045
938  Economy / Securities / Re: GLBSE Payment Claims (Announce your payment here) on: October 19, 2012, 03:25:44 AM
So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j

It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.
Good luck chasing anyone when you have no idea who paid you back in the first place...
939  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Scammer tag: Nefario. on: October 19, 2012, 01:52:04 AM
Hmm, if Nefario did shut it down without having a vote that does seem to violate the contract. However, is GLBSE really "shut down" as it is still operating? 

It seems to me that GLBSE has not been shut down but is now operating in a different way. GLBSE clearly has not been shut down so giving the tag for that is not just. You would have to show that in operating in this current way then Nefario is a scammer. However I don't think the by laws will support this. The whole point of a CEO is to take action when it is needed.  Since Nefario won the vote clearly he is supported and his actions are supported (why I have no idea).

The scammer tag for this was rushed and not well thought out. It more or less hurt the value of the scammer tag and the trust in the "judges" on the forum.

I strongly think Nefario is a scammer and maybe even a criminal but he has been given the tag in a way that is not just and done so for reasons that were not just.

The tag should be removed and reapplied in a just way.
Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.
940  Other / Meta / Re: Censorship on Bitcointalk on: October 19, 2012, 01:01:04 AM
...
I surprised nobody posted this, given that I explicitly said that people could say that I was the one who requested the ban...

I read it as you giving permission to Theymos to disclose it to Rarity, not to someone else to disclose it to other forum users.
I suppose. I never figured a thread would pop up.  Undecided
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 158 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!