This is mainly be just venting my frustration, but I didn't realise that this is somewhat of a common problem. As people usually say you don't wake up until it happens to you, and for the last few years I've had no issues buying Bitcoin. Of course, the conspiracy theories come racing into your head, is the bank going against Bitcoin or is it related to the pandemic that's going on. At the end of the day, whatever the reason even if it was fraud prevention, and nothing else. It prevented me from purchasing something that I wanted within a specific time frame. The Bitcoin price was at a nice value, and its currently a few hundred pounds higher than when I tried to purchase. I do understand that fraud happens, but you should be able to waiver this, and say you are prepared for the risk just like I am with Bitcoin. Bitcoin, doesn't have a fraud protection system, and you control everything, and that is the way it should be.


That's the point. They actually blocked me from purchasing over the internet, and required me to actually physically go to the bank. They are a big bank in the UK, and are actually one of  the mains ones. They support; internet, mobile, and my limit is well over the amount that I tried to purchase. I also tried using a debit card, as I'm against credit cards. That was also blocked, and had to be confirmed in person. Its annoying, because any other purchase that I've made in the last few years that have been over this amount have gone through fine. Lets also confirm that I do have enough money in the bank, and that's not the issue. In fact, I've even just purchased something else of value (not quite the same amount leaving), and guess what? The transaction went through fine, without even a phone call.


Good point. I understand that fraud prevention actually helps probably thousands each year, but I should have the option of them interfering or not, but I don't. Requiring my physical presence while they advertise you can spend xx,xxx amount per day over the internet is quite simply annoying. Especially, when time is the essence when it comes to buying Bitcoin or something as volatile as it. I didn't ask for these AML procedures or fraud prevention. It has never saved me before, and has only ever hindered my purchases.

I wasn't aware of the dirty funds fine issue, but I don't think that would apply to money leaving their bank. Every question was answered, and everything was confirmed within about 2 minutes. I had all the information required ready has I have gone through this process before, however that actually got sent off, and was actually for a larger amount. However, they did ask what it was for, and I stated cryptocurrencies. This might be in my head, but I could have sworn that the person on the end of the phone changed their tune, and then started to state that this might not get "pushed" through, but they'll try everything in their power too. However, when I previously sent a larger amount for a expedition in Nepal.....that went through without any issues at all, in fact when I stated what it was for the man on the other end wanted to have a chat about it, and seemed excited. It was just a total different encounter this time.

I've recently tried purchasing Bitcoin, and because it was a large amount the bank required me to call their fraud department, and confirm it was me. This is considered normal practice, and I didn't think I would run into any issues. However, when stating the reason for sending a large amount to buy "cryptocurrencies" it seemed to trigger an alarm, and despite me verifying that it was indeed myself, they went into depth about being sure that the company I was sending it to was legitimate. I verified that I had done my homework, and this particular company has transacted millions worth, however they were not convinced. In fact, they went as far to say that this sounds like a scam thats been going around recently ,and even though I said I accepted that risk, I still wanted the payment to go through. He said he would try to push it through, but came back a minute later, and said it was unsuccessful, and I would be required to go to the bank, and send it from there.

The thing is I actually live quite a bit away from my "local" branch, and with the pandemic going on, and a few cases they still advised me to go to the bank. This is annoying, and has convinced me to only use a bank for what is necessary. I can't verify whether this was a genuine concern about fraud, or if it was because it involved cryptocurrency.

I'm wondering if anyone else has had any issues with banks when purchasing crypto recently. This particular bank doesn't seem very friendly to cryptocurrencies because of previous actions, but I've also had no problems. I've also transferred out larger amounts with no issue other than confirming that I wanted to send it over the phone.

My works unfortunately only pays via bank, and therefore owning a bank is necessary. However, I'm thinking about regular withdrawals, and converting to Bitcoin. However, for that to happen I need a bank which actually allows me to send via the internet, and not go to a branch which isn't even local to me.  I understand, that banks try to protect their customers from large amounts or any unusual actions, but requiring my physical presence is often not convenient, and prevents me from moving my money whenever I want. Although, because of this happening to me personally this has personally reinforced my beliefs that whenever possible you should be in complete control of your money (private keys), and use a system which you do not rely on third parties like Bitcoin, but this is still rather annoying.

If they have a fever then that's exactly what they should be doing. Change in core temperature for long periods of time, even if its minute can have drastic consequences. Your core temperature isn't suppose to fluctuate much at all, and can lead to cardiac arrest if not controlled. Even in hospitals they don't tend to raise or lower your temperature beyond the recommended values, and they merely try to contain your temperature in these ranges.

However, I will go on to say that people shouldn't be stockpiling medicine they don't need, and anyone that advises people to do this is creating a herd mentality. Which then encourages everyone to buy just for the sake of it which then leaves those in need without. For example, getting food in our family recently has proven difficult, although we did manage to do it on day 2, and our spend was roughly £30 when its usually in the hundreds. There's been a report of a robbery on a hospital in Denmark, and several minor fights breaking out within supermarkets. People, are simply being controlled by fear right now, and if anything has proven how selfish we can be.

Basically, what Vod linked.

1. Where are you getting the error?
2. Can you reproduce the error?
3. Time, and date the error occurred
4. steps taken before the error was produced

AFAIK this isn't even anything to do with the forum, and should be elsewhere. Would you please elaborate where this error is from.

Although, audio books are usually great I'd agree. The original Satoshi whitepaper isn't that great in all honestly for those that are new to it. Its entertaining for a couple of times when its being read by a cryptocurrency nerd, but for beginners I wouldn't recommend it at all. Of course, its always going to be on the reading list just because its the first public whitepaper that was released, but it doesn't offer those that are new to Bitcoin any real value unless they already have some understanding of how cryptocurrencies work, and the concepts discussed in the whitepaper.

I'm not sure what the community consensus would be on this; but a rewrite of the Bitcoin whitepaper aimed at introducing complete beginners to the world of cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin might be helpful.

Yeah, its no problem to post in the digital section with a fixed price, and still accept offers. In fact, this is better than the alternative of doing it on a auction, because the general consenus is that auction terms should be transparent, and "offers" aren't very good for this. Either make a auction with a starting price, and buy it now or the better route in my opinion would be to list in it digital goods with your desired price. You're more than welcome to accept private offers within that section.

Whatever software you use, and I would recommend against using any online websites such as bitaddress.org unless its merely just checking your balance; be sure to verify the checksum to assure that you've downloaded from a legitimate source. This is the only way to assure that what you have downloaded hasn't been tampered with. As for other online wallets like exchanges its up to you whether you think its worth the risk for a "small" amount, but I'd recommend against that if at all possible.

If you've imported your private key into bitaddress.com or any other online wallet service then I would consider your private key compromised from here on out.

This has been discussed many times before, but also tackling it from a campaign manager point of view also. Possibly, being a little more strict, and banning campaigns if they prove the be problematic. I believe theymos is overwhelmingly against removing signature campaigns all together, but I wouldn't be surprised if it continues the way it is he will eventually lose his patience. This is just speculation on my end, but I imagine a few things will be reintroduced to try, and prevent removing it altogether, especially the way that altcoin related signature campaigns are operating right now.

I think almost everyone is against a complete restriction like newbie jail again, however I do think the newbie jail had some benefits to it, but simply put the cons outweighed the pros. In reality all the newbie jail did was put off the users which are completely effortlessly trying to earn money, but usually spammers are willing to put in the work initially if they can get whitelisted within 4 hours or whatever it was back when newbie jail was around. So, essentially all we did was delay the fact these low quality users could roam the forum, and post wherever they like.   


This, and allowing users to determine whether they want to include signatures on their thread upon opening are probably the best options I've seen proposed so far. Although, this only counteracts the signature spammers, and doesn't prevent users from farming their accounts. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the issue we will always have some sort of issue with low quality users, and those low quality users are going to be more frequent the more popular Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies get. We could put all the restrictions in place, and they will find a way around it.

Although, this is true to some extent, we should always give the benefit of the doubt. Many users read for months before eventually signing up. I know with Reddit for example I don't even own an account, but I read there fairly often for information.


This however is a valid point. Considering the email which is public information on that account has the same name "fricks" as the original poster of this thread. Its likely that they are in fact alternate accounts of each other. Especially, considering the other piece of information above that I addressed that usually you should give the benefit of doubt too new users.

This was likely an attempt to gain a little merit by sharing their observations, but again they're a new user, and I know for a fact that my posts back when I was a newbie wasn't that high of quality, so I think it would be a little harsh to jump to the conclusion that this user will not be a quality user of the forum in the future, and thus the benefit of the doubt should be given when it comes to ignoring them. It was only from learning about the forum, Bitcoin, and maturing as an adult that I started to improve the quality of my posts. I think its quite well documented that humans are bad at spotting connections, and patterns. An example, of this which I'll admit is a little off topic, but still is a good way of looking at it; is if you have a bad day because you broke a mirror, and then had bad luck you would associate bad luck with the breaking of the mirror. Although, of course this is an extreme example, but gets the point across. Of course, breaking a mirror doesn't have any association with the outcome of your day usually, and is just being superstitious. I guess what I'm trying to relate this to is just because there is more merit within a certain section doesn't mean that if you post there you'll get more merit. Its in fact the quality of the your posts, however certain sections as pointed out by a few people draw in better quality users.

Development & Technical discussion is a prime example of this. Spammers are put off by posting in this section mainly because it actually requires some intelligence, and knowledge of Bitcoin to participate in this section of the forum. Something which a lot of spammers tend to avoid not because they're inherently unintelligent, but because they don't want to think, and want to post as much as possible with as little effort as possible. Signature campaign users usually flock to the easy to discuss options, and this is a common problem for the campaign managers when they hire someone, because for the majority of users will have a change of mindset as soon as you introduce money into the equation. Anyway, to prevent me going on more of a tangent; my point is that certain sections of the forum invite better quality posters, and the merit spend on that section is a result of this rather than the actual section itself. If a low quality user was to post in these high spend sections they would not be anymore likely to receive merit than other sections, because it is highly dependent on the motive, and quality of the post. There are some mild exceptions like local sections, and the altcoin section.

Its all about the type of content you post rather than the section that is is within. The only exception is certain local sections don't receive nearly as much merit, however that also works in the opposite in certain local sections. I've seen a sort of loyalty between certain local users, and they are more likely to award users within their local community for lesser content (in my opinion). I don't think that's a bad thing, and is only a mere observation. However, for your observations above I'd argue that its not the section, but the content is king here as with everything. The reputation section, and scam accusations for example is known for outing scams which will gain a lot of merit usually. Anything which is done for the benefit of the community will receive huge support. So, although there is some correlation between the type of content, and the section its mostly the type of content you post.  

I do prefer this implementation compared to the tampermonkey alternative though, because depending on the thread subject matter you could potentially determine whether this user may have actually contributed to the discussion. Usually, trolls or users which like to spread nonsense haven't always got no input at all. For example, you might start ignoring a user because they are pushing their narrative on an altcoin, so any thread discussing the specifics pros, and cons of Bitcoin would likely get trashed by this user. However, if its something related to the forum, then they might actually be well up on how things go, and provide useful insight. Therefore, having this "user is ignored" gives you a reminder that this user is ignored, and if you wanted to you could temporarily take them off ignore to read their response.

Yeah, I'm not a massive fan of advertisements within posts, but I can see why others would be against that. After all if its Bitcoin related it can be somewhat beneficial to offer exposure, and promote Bitcoin services. Although, having said that I'd agree with your outlook on things. I'd prefer advertisements to stay in signatures. However, if I were to offer a prime example of posts that would be eligible in my eyes it would likely be Mitchell's, and another users which went through the installation of mining equipment, but I can't quite remember that user right now.

That's a good point, and something I didn't initially consider, but I think this should probably be monitored very closely otherwise we could see some worthless altcoin tokens being offered, and the forum starts to get plastered in sponsored threads. This is unlikely as it would probably be regulated before that would happen, but I think going the route of asking permission before doing it is probably the better idea.

Joshua isn't the most defensively sound fighter. He beat Ruiz the second time by being extremely cautious, but also using his superior fitness to keep the distance, and his superior reach to score the points. Honestly, I thought Ruiz when getting within range looked the most dangerous of the two despite Ruiz not turning up to that fight. Joshua has been rocked by a few boxers in his career, because he likes to get close, and exchange big blows, leaving him rather susceptible to these "punches from the gods". Don't get me wrong I do want a Joshua win just because it sets up the fight against Fury nicely (as long as he goes on to beat Wilder for the third time )

Interestingly enough I haven't ran into any Bitcoin ATMs. I don't go to the cities too often, and that would be a contributing factor. However, it would be interesting to see how these are being advertised, and what their daily usage is. I'm assuming without doing any research that there's multiple Bitcoin ATMs in Cardiff, Wales, but despite that I haven't seen any ATMs within the central parts of Cardiff which I would expect them to be most prominent. I tend to avoid London as much as possible, but they are probably better advertised, and utilized there.

I think you're underestimating the very nature of the Chinese government. They aren't known for allowing their citizens to control anything that they would rightfully own in other countries, and I don't think they would be prepared to give a decentralised cryptocurrency the green light any time soon. Maybe, in the future if there are big changes internally for China, but currently their country looks to impose control of its population in every sector possible.

In accordance to theymos' post quoted above I probably wouldn't consider most of these threads substantial enough for sponsorship. However, I'd be interested in hearing the general communities opinions. I'm also assuming some of those thread owners have contacted theymos prior to sponsoring the thread. I likely have a different perception to many, and think that sponsored posts or advertisements should only be included on threads which are in depth, and have a minimum read time above 10 minutes. Although, that is the gambling section, so expectations could be less over in that section.

Missed some of your points in my last reply so here it goes;

Potentially could have an effect. However, he's an elite athlete, has discussed on Joe Rogan's podcast that he routinely uses a weighted jacket close to 40lbs, and the fact that a non athlete like myself uses a 50lbs weighted jacket to supplement my work outs, and feel absolutely amazing when I take it off I'd like to think a professional athlete would be able to last 2 rounds without showing signs of fatigue like he did. Well, to be honest from my observations he didn't show fatigue until getting hit in the head several times. Before, the first knock down he actually tagged Fury with some big hits as Fury was leaving himself open due to his aggressive nature of that fight.

Also, the promoters will not risk Dubois. Dubois is an up and coming fighter who will be protected just like Anthony Joshua, and most other big names are protected at first. Think Wilder, and how he hasn't really fought anyone noteworthy except for Ortiz, and Fury. Dubois will have a few years of "tune up" fights before setting foot in the ring with anyone big. Fury would be a big risk at this early stage of his career, and considering Fury is considered to be in his prime I can't see that being good for Dubois who still needs a little work.