For anyone that considers themselves to lazy to check the url, and verify its the proper one every single time. Then, I suggest that you research it once, and then bookmark making it easier to access next time. Personally, I check the url each time, but I understand others may not have the patience for that.

Although, there's no verifiable way of calculating the real impact. I would say, as long as they're getting this link out there, many will fall for it. Just think, many people still get fooled by the "I'm a Nigerian prince, and I'm going to give you free money" type emails. So, I'd assume something that I would consider more obscure would be successful. Obviously, assuming that they are promoting this to a large enough group.

No, however I've heard of from others that this can actually be pretty common on small amounts. Usually, exchanges have quite restrictive limits on payment systems that can be chargedback, and therefore the fees are set accordingly, and the exchange, and people tend to do as much as they can to persuade you not to use them. So, this does protect larger amounts from being stolen, but I do think some people will look to charge back even if its a small amount, and you should avoid using anything that can be charged back as much as possible.

Don't assume that because someone has linked their ID, they won't scam you. Its better to be cautious anyway.

I think a lot of people are unaware that Justin has a decent bit of experience on the state side of wrestling. I believe he was in the hall of fame for either his school, or his state I forget which one. The guy, at least knows wrestling, and should be vulnerable to easy chokes. However, that being said I don't know the quality of state side wrestling, and in particular his state. I've heard its at a decent level. Over in the UK, being a top "athlete" within your county is not that impressive at all, but I have a feeling stateside is a little more impressive due to the sheer sides of states in America. 

However, that being said Khabib is a master of his craft. You know what you're going up against, hes world class on the floor, and to be honest I think his striking is a underrated part of his game. I don't see this going 5 rounds, and I don't see this ending by a submission. I believe Khabib will either knock out Justin, or Justin will knock out Khabib. Khabib has shown in the past he can throw punches. His fight against Connor he traded quite a few punches, and honestly if my memory is serving me well, I thought he beat Connor standing too.

Also, there's a 6ft 11" dude fighting on the weekend, I don't know how hes slipped through the cracks for me, but I don't recall ever seeing him fight, and I like to think I would remember if I did .

I know democracy is considered the better of the evils when it comes to leadership, but I'm actually against the idea here. I think it would be a waste of resources, when it comes to sorting out a proper voting system which would be transparent, figuring out the logistics, and then implementing it would be take away valuable time from other things. You sign up on this forum, and agree to abide by the rules, and probably are assumed to somewhat agree with how things work around here. However, if there are some bad decisions made at the top, or there's some dubious features implemented, then I would like to think that the community would rise up, and bring up their concerns, and I personally believe theymos to be quite open minded, and accepting on forum proposals because of various changes throughout the years.

We all asked for a system to bring better quality to the forum, and there was numerous complaints for a while, but the alternative solution proposed was to remove signature campaigns. Theymos, and whoever else was involved implementing the merit system, came up with a solution, that didn't take anything away from the forum, but probably did reduce the traffic to the forum (without verifying that myself).

Theymos, has demonstrated that they can identify complaints from the community, and come up with a solution which they believe to better the forum. Taking away signature campaigns, would have damaged the ecosystem of the forum, and I can see why someone would like to protect that. The merit system might not be absolutely perfect, and when is anything ever perfect? Its been pretty successful at what it was brought in to do.

Also, there is nothing stopping groups of users coming up with a priority list, and having public votes on changes. This could be a community driven effort, and the admins can take that into consideration possibly. Overall, I like your proposal, but I don't have any major complaints about how its been run now, and the changes that have been made. The merit system, and the bump system are the most recent additions, and to be honest probably have had a overwhelmingly positive effect on the forum, and I haven't always agreed with changes, and policies especially during my early years of the forum, but my views have certainly developed since then.

Make sure that this Amazon reseller is on the official list of resellers. Since, amazon is a online marketplace, and its not always "amazon" selling the goods. There are many companies which sell via Amazon, and they may well claim to be a reseller, but without verification you can't take their word.

Probably not. Since, most people who are interested in a hardware wallet know the significance of buying one from an official source. So, its highly unlikely that these security conscious people are going to buy it from anywhere other than that. There will be cases, of people buying from non resellers, and there's a bunch on Amazon, Ebay trying to sell hardware wallets, but that doesn't necessarily mean its tampered with, but why would you take the risk?

Who decides on significant code changes? Wondering what the criteria of that would be whether it would be over x amount of code changes, or a subjective decision from Coinbase. I definitely do agree that this is something good for Bitcoin, and adds a little incentive to the Bitcoin Core Developers was well as those developing related systems which is always a good thing. I'm wondering whether this will be split evenly between the different criteria, or if there will be more funds allocated to certain developers, and if this will all be as transparent as possible.

Some users will argue that they would prefer quality over quantity though. Although, I feel like a balance could eventually be made it would likely mean introducing more strict rules, that would likely not be welcomed by a lot of people who believe in freedom, and having a pleasant experience. As with anything, balance is incredibly hard to achieve when you're talking about influencing many thousands of users.

I do believe bounties likely bring in more bad effects to the forum than good ones, but that's purely from a subjective viewpoint. They have certainly contributed to the eco system of the forum, and many would argue that has several benefits to its users, and the forum as a result.

I understand that this is a little more work on your end, and not something that's expected of you. However, if you feel that a serial spammer has been missed, and the action taken against them is lenient you can always contact a moderator, and see if they have any input on the matter. They don't have to get back to you, but they might do depending on the case. I know this is also pretty difficult, since you don't know exactly who dealt with it, but when you're reporting on a rather large scale you get used to the timezones of moderators, and the most likely handling your reports.

We do appreciate the reports most definitely, and that's coming from a user point of view. Even if the post gets deleted it makes viewing threads much more easier. I didn't tend to track what users were banned when I was reporting, I was simply happy to see the reported post get removed, but I understand the frustration of what might feel like a lack of justice, and possibly even a inconsistent way of handling things. Unfortunately, there's no real way of avoiding this, unless we enforced strict rules that didn't take any other factors into consideration, but then I would argue that would be unjust also. Of course, its much more obvious with the serial spammers, but its surprising how many well known users fall into the same traps as new users too in terms of breaking the rules.

As for the shitty remark; I definitely do believe that both sides are achieving something, and it does feel rewarding. Reporting was therapeutic to me, and moderating isn't that far off that either. I do have a huge respect for those that report though, as I know how tedious it can be sometimes. 

I'll be looking to add a section to this to explain why ignored reports happen, and give specific examples as to why they happen. I think ignored reports brings up controversies, and can be quite difficult to understand, but sometimes leaving a report ignored, is the best way of handling it. I'm sure some users might find that helpful. Any other ideas to flesh out this guide that you'd like to see?

I've also changed the title to "Unofficial Guide", because I don't want this to appear as the officially accepted way of reporting. As all staff might not agree with my advice. This is very much my take on reporting effectively.

No worries, glad you're finding use of it. Its not too big of a deal to have no description in some cases, but for more complex cases it is definitely appreciated. It is definitely good practice to include as much information as possible, since what might be immediately obvious to you, might not be to the moderator reviewing the report.  

I can't speak on behalf of every moderator that handles the reports, but I would think that it would vary between moderators. Some will be slightly more stricter than others, and I would argue there's definitely considerations to make before handing out bans. Especially, to those that can only nuke users, and request bans. For a simple example, if a user has posted "Joined" or some other incredibly low quality post, that probably justifies a ban per the rules if that is all the user contributes to the forum. However, if they've added something of value, and don't constantly break this specific rule, then a deletion should serve as a warning before actually receiving a temporary or permanent ban.

That's my input, after all its to the discretion of the moderator reviewing the case, and there might be other considerations playing a factor other than the reports face value. I've found myself probably being a little to forgiving sometimes, and that's something that's been worked on, but generally I think spammers are dealt with quite a bit.

Its also worth noting; When I was reporting, I recognized serial spammers much more easily than when I've been handling the reports myself. That's, simply because the sheer volume of reports that you see as a moderator, of varying different reasons drowns out the regular reports that you make as a user. Unfortunately, this means that spammers, and serial spammers at that may well creep through the cracks now, and again especially when there might be different moderators handling the report each time.

Although, this rule is followed up on a fairly regular basis, and a lot of them do actually get banned. I would guess that most of the nuked users are those with low quality replies like "joined" type posts, rather than plagiarism etc.

How long have you been using the service? They may have possibly frozen it to assure that everything is correct as that's a fairly large amount or their internal systems are having issues. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions if its only been a little while since that support ticket.



What exactly are they requiring you to send, that you cannot? Most of the time, services like these ask for documentation, or your countries equivalent. For example, on another unrelated example, when applying for a job they may ask for your tax code, this varies per country, and sometimes UK based companies ask for your national issue number, while American companies ask for your social security number. There is probably an alternative option for you, just ask them.

Anti viruses guard against already known malicious code, and likely malicious code it is by no means a necessary program to have, and I would estimate most technical users opt not to use anti virus software, and simply follow a security protocol. I follow my own protocol that I've continually developed throughout the years, and two factor authentication is included that. However, I'm definitely vulnerable to more heinous attacks, as is everyone.  New malicious code is being developed every day, and it isn't going to slow down any time soon. What you have to do, is stay up to date, and adjust your habits accordingly. Even then, no one is ever 100% safe, and there will always be associated risks when connected to the internet. Two factor authentication on a dedicated device just for that would alleviate some of the problems, and as long as the network isn't compromised would be a decent way of doing it,  but in truth not many people are willing to go to that lengths, and that's exactly how people get compromised.

This is also something the community advocates for; Search up your issue before asking another question. I don't tend to have an issue with repeated questions, as I think I've explained before, but I know that some users tend to get irritated by the same questions over, and over. I think its natural for less technical questions to be asked, because of your reasons above, and the fact that Bitcoin may get simpler over time. Cryptocurrencies might not be as alien as they once before, and there's either better documentation right off the bat now, or technical issues have been ironed out, and simplified.

Its not possible in most cases. Sometimes requests can be made, but this is usually to do with privacy issues. The only real alternative, is to create a new user account. There's only been a handful that I know that have had their usernames changed, and these are usually somewhat high profile users that I know of. I'm not sure the reasons behind why they had their username changed, but it was probably for a fairly significant reason, especially in recent years since these requests are likely made all the time now that the forum is quite a bit larger than when I've seen usernames get changed frequently.

The merit system might not be perfect, and in many peoples eyes it isn't, but I think the vast majority of users here will agree that its had a largely positive effect on the community, and the forum as a result. However, you bring up valid concerns, but I would argue that allowing merit sources to stockpile merit would mean they aren't spending it in the first place, and might not justify being a merit source. Ignoring the last few months, as I would assume during the pandemic, that merit source spend has been greatly reduced (although, I haven't looked at the statistics to back that up) I know from a personal stand point, my merit spend has been much, much lower due to my time being sapped up by work. If a merit source isn't spending a great deal of their merit source allocation, there might be an opportunity for someone else to replace them that would without creating endless amounts of merit within the system.

With any system, balance is important. We want it to be achievable to rank up, but we don't want it to be so easy that any old dribble gets through the cracks. We want some sort of standard, and merit to mean something. My question would be, do you think earned merit is of substantial value right now? Are there many users, who aren't ranking up? I think, there's a few individuals that probably deserve more merit in comparison with the rest of the community, but either already are top ranks, or are slowly making their way up the ranks. They aren't going to be subjected to lower ranks, as long as they continue posting the quality content they already are.

This is good advice when it comes to anything relating to computing; compartmentalization is a brilliant foundation for security, whether that will be for files, Bitcoin, credentials or two factor authentication. Ideally, you want to have as many devices to isolate each piece of information as possible, and the same goes for 2 factor authentication. For example, if you have an exchange account which you access via your email, and 2 factor authentication through an app for both the exchange, and the email you would ideally have two devices for two different 2 factor authentication apps for the exchange, and the email.  Now, this can quickly become tedious, and sometimes unwarranted, and I understand that this is a more extreme measure to take, but you should take your security seriously when it comes to anything computing, and not just Bitcoin.

- Do not use the same device for access to your account & two factor authentication.
- Do not store credentials on the same device unless they're encrypted.
- Try to compartmentalize wherever possible.

Its good advice, but be sure to store this offline. I wouldn't even print it, and I would copy it out by hand. Verify that it works (most services offer a way to verify a backup seed securely). I'm not a big fan of Google run companies due to privacy issues, and the fact that I believe Google authentication is closed source. I would always recommend open source software whenever possible, unless its poorly coded to begin with, I would say that would be better than most "trusted" closed sourced applications.

Providing us with the bitcoin address might help us identify any issues like how many confirmations, and whether there was a small fee included, although like others are suggesting it sounds like a sync issue, and you're not completely out of luck. Especially, if you're certain you copy, and pasted the correct address.

However, if you don't want to share the Bitcoin address for privacy reasons, then you can follow the instructions of updating your client, and connecting to a new server. Report back to us with your findings.

I'm with the stance that it doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin. It just so happens that the terrorist group used Bitcoin like any other currency. Its like saying that terrorism is everything to do with guns, when its not. There's perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, although I tend to side against guns in the majority of circumstances coming from the UK, and seeing the issues that they cause, but I acknowledge the right for those in America to own a gun, but just because terrorists use guns, doesn't mean its to do with guns, and the same for Bitcoin. There's probably a better comparison out there to be made, but I don't see why Bitcoin is pinpointed here, when the real news headline is that terrorism still exists in 2020. 

I hate when news sources tend to focus on the intricate details that Bitcoin was used, in an attempt to sway the opinion of the public to associate Bitcoin with criminals. This is not accepted by the Bitcoin community, and certainly wasn't the intended use for Bitcoin. However, I know that this will be spun in many of the tabloids as being such, that by design Bitcoin allows these sorts of things to exist or something along those lines (ignoring the fact that there's a public ledger which records every transaction in existence). I've seen some drivel over the years. Its highly likely that this terrorism ring, were using several other currencies to as well.

The real focus here should be why terrorism still exists in 2020, and what we can do to stop it.


I'd argue that terrorism is outright wrong, and isn't made worse by using Bitcoin or any other currency for that matter. Terrorism is usually a crime against humanity, which happens to be in this case linked with Bitcoin. However, there has been many before (too many) linked with fiat currencies. The people who commit terrorism aren't known for having much appreciation for anything other than their own motives, let alone something as insignificant as Bitcoin when we are talking about real world lives.

Most casinos have a support email which might be more appropriate. Although, I don't see it that big of a deal if you're contacting each casino, and providing them specific information to their site on what they failed on etc. As far as I know, and this might need to be confirmed as long as you aren't spamming the same message to every single one of them there should be little problems. Alternatively, you could open a thread, and get casinos to opt in. I don't know whether this would be of interest to most casinos since they tend to just ignore these issues, and claim ignorance, but could be an option for you.

Doesn't really qualify as spam to me, you're informing each casino of a "bug" that directly goes against their own terms of service. Some casinos might in fact appreciate it, while others will likely ignore it since they'll want as many users as possible to be playing on their site.