I think that regardless of whether it is intentional or just the result of people giving merits as "likes". It is extremely disappointing to seeing ANN threads, exchanges and escrow service threads rising in the ranks of displayed top threads. If it continues to be allowed then it will drown out the non commercial threads actually worth reading.

It will also defeat a large part of the purpose of having the merit system.

Should ANN and services threads be excluded from the merit system ?
Or at least excluded from being shown in the displayed statistics.

It is actually sad to see this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=toptopicsat
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=toptopics

The merit system is being used to advertise threads.

I think it is disgusting that a shitcoin ANN thread like deeponion has a higher merit ranking than Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney)

I didn't discuss any merits. Liking a post doesn't mean it doesn't have meritable quality. I realise you were saying it in jest but I've become very fussy with giving out merits ever since I was accused here .

I tend to avoid merit topics and generally avoid giving merits to topics with merit in the title since I think a lot of them are over merited and attracted merit farming (posting for the purpose of harvesting merits).
Unless it has some clever analytics like what DdmrDdmr does - that is meritable stuff.

I do enjoy getting merits because it is a recognition that people like the effort it took to make the post. Also I enjoy being able to give the merits to others that deserve them. (Although I don't think I would enjoy being a merit source - the begging would annoy me)

I also don't believe you would try to scam someone. But it is a bit like a protester that gets arrested for public disobedience or public nuisance. They get a conviction but not for dishonesty.

A DT placing trust is no different to a non DT placing trust except for one difference - it shows by default.

Anyone can modify their settings to show no trust or run their own trust list. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

It wouldn't show others from seeing the default trust that others placed - but if someone clicks the untrusted link they see trust left by others too.

According to trust placed on me by a scammer that has since been nuked -  I'm some bad former silkroad drug dealer because I wrote an article about silk road and advocated for free speech.
Not bad for someone who drinks alcohol perhaps once a year and has never tied weed. But I wish I had known about bitcoin when Silkroad existed. I wouldn't have used it on Silkroad but I'd have a bigger Bitcoin HODL stash.

People shouldn't post to get merit points. People should post because they have something valid to say.
Preferably something new and interesting. Something that hasn't been said or done countless times before.

Merit ensures that people who write crap don't rank up. Merit is not there so people deliberately write posts for the sole purpose of earning them merit.

Yeah but I think it is more like a bit of mutual torture.

It is possible to find someone annoying and likable at the same time.
I'm sure some of them used the ignore function but others like at least some of the content you post.

I like this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008745.msg30939289#msg30939289


I have a very suggestible mind. When you say something like that I picture it.
Like a song that gets stuck in your head.

Someone compared some of the shitposts to a Haiku. Whenever I see a shitpost it looks like a Haiku now. Not sure if that is good or bad.

The DT system is centralized but I think while it is not perfect it works 99% of the time.
As long as a clear reason is given a reader of that feedback can determine whether to trust that person or not.
It is only a warning. It doesn't stop them from posting or conducting trades.

Too many DT2s also can be an issue. When there has been a fight among them the negatives can really fly - and that can be detrimental for the whole system. For such reasons it is good to keep it as a small group that respect and trust each other - regardless of whether others agree.

This way at least most DT2 feedback is consistent. I have seen the DT2s in action and while I don't agree with everything I have not seen them being extremely unfair. I have seen a number of times where they have asked for more proof or  given the benefit of doubt or have not tagged a person because they consider them to be a contributor (despite their obvious flaws).  Ultimately it is their personal decision as to whether they want to tag, warn others or punish the user.


You can get a negative for a variety of things. It is up to that person to determine whether they trust you. That can be highly subjective.
Things like merit abuse, account sales, participation in the hype of a dodgy coin all are dodgy but subjective and dependent on the damage done.
For instance - I have strong views on account sales, ponzis, dodgy ICOs and phishing scams. I have less strong views on merit abuse.
(Rather than tagging merit abusers it is better to "report their shitposts" and if they get perma-banned the merits are permanently gone)
Eventually the airdropped merits will run out and merit abusers will become history.

It doesn't mean that they don't all deserve to be tagged but it is up to that individual DT.

Customizing your setting will only determine what you see on other peoples profiles. Other users on default settings will always see your trust if it is from a DT.


I thought you wore the negative trust like medals.

Firstly - I have no issue with you. I think that some of the DT2s might even like you a little bit as a form of stockholm syndrome or masochism.

From what I read is that  you got the negatives initially for advocating for other users that got negative feedback. It meant that you were representing people that were classified as scammers.

While this may have been of noble intent but the DT2s found that untrustworthy. Tagged users are able to put their case themselves in the reputation thread.

It is a bit like if you start picketing a police station because someone unfairly received a conviction. You may get arrested for being a public nuisance.

Whether it has been fairly given - I'm staying out of that discussion - but I'm not sure whether your feedback does you much harm. It states that they find you a troll. It isn't visible in Meta and I doubt it would stop people from doing a trade with you since there is nothing there that indicates that you would steal.

It may even give you more credibility with those that feel they have been unfairly tagged.

Why isn't this ICO advertised in the Greek section of this forum ? You used to post there all the time.


There is no ability to disable thread searches and everything is indexed by google anyway. Important information is also available using archives and cache. Archives can be used to show changed or deleted content.

Making such claims is extremely suspect. You had me almost convinced earlier. Now I don't believe any of your claims. Your inability to use the forum functions (being Legendary) and (lack of) knowledge of forum protocols just astounds me.

Perhaps you are talking about this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739698.msg17648719#msg17648719
Made by this user ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=899157

(Also unrelated (since there is no validity to the accusation) - Perhaps reading my article on Mt.Gox will give you some clues about BTCe. Hint: LOL @ scamming BTCe)

When people get busted for scams they make all sorts of ridiculous claims or set up alt accounts to make up claims. Of course they turn out to be extremely transparent. Apparently I'm a drug dealer because I wrote an article about silk road. Never mind the fact that my account is from 2016, I wasn't into crypto when silkroad was in existence and there are no verifiable facts offered. That is the difference between legitimate scam claims made and bogus scam claims made.

Legitimate claims include the offering of verifiable proof. Whether correct or incorrect a decent level of proof is offered accompanying the claim. This proof can then be checked and discussed by a variety of people. Others can use it to make an opinion.

Bogus claims either offer no proof, nonsense or strawmen to deflect accusations made towards themselves.  If you utilize claims made by untrusted feedback then you really should verify the claims yourself - otherwise you are just repeating nonsense that is usually already proven to be false. Deliberately using false already disproven claims is something that scammers do all the time. It makes the person making the claims look like a scammer.

I can accept a noob making such a mistake but really would expect more form someone with a Legendary account.

Seeing how trustworthy someone is when they are asking for $20-30 million dollars is essential. Everyone involved with the project should expect to be scrutinized.
Their trustworthiness is a reflection on whether the project is to be trusted. Cryptodevil isn't offering an ICO.  Yet his credibility and claims are far more transparent than yours.

Making provably bogus accusations against him won't help your case. He isn't advertising to get money. You are.

Lets see if I understand it so far:

You are advertising to get millions of dollars for tokens that the "investor" can use to pay for services on a platform that has 2500 subscribers.

The funds will be used to PAY to develop the platform but the investor doesn't get any OWNERSHIP in return.

So while the investors token funds are used to develop and market the platform the rewards are kept by the founders. The "investor" can use the tokens to pay for the services that it helped develop.

In the meantime a legendary account from someone suffering from cancer that has little understanding of the forum rules and doesn't know how to use some of the basic forum functions that is not getting paid to advertise the ICO and doing it completely voluntary out of the goodness of their heart is advertising the ICO.

The director of the company that owns the APP - Sanjay Sinha has nothing to do with the ICO.

Evil "cryptodevil" who is working for another competing ICO (no evidence given), who is blocking you from accessing forum functions (functions that cannot be blocked), who is scamming others (no evidence given) is asking horrible relevant questions. Anyone expressing a symilar viewpoint is automatically his sockpuppet alt account. (Hint to anyone planning to use this as "evidence of scamming by Cryptodevil" - I'm expressing sarcasm)

Instead we should listen to the clearly paid shills or bots that are posting such believable and creative nonsense that it either "spam bumping" the thread (breaking forum rules) or a creative attempt at a Haiku.



Did I summarize it correctly ?




Making aggressive statements like this also doesn't help. It is often used by scammers. How can anyone take something like that seriously ? You will fly anywhere in the world to meet someone who accuses the ICO which you are not getting paid for to advertise as a scam ? Wouldn't it be hard to get travel insurance with your condition ?

Bitcoin forum evolved from the Cypherpunks movement. Do you really think that early members are going to drop their OpSec and reveal their identity to someone they are accusing of being a scammer when they believe in anonymity, encryption and privacy ?

Ddmrddmr is more likely to be a real Nulius with
475 Merits since January and all genuinely obtained.
I like his clever web tools.

Google translate is far from perfect.

...and then there was the translator for the deaf at Mandelas funeral...

https://i.imgur.com/Wv4GTI9.gif

It was based on the name of the user and use of lots of exclamation marks.

Something that I have seen both you and Lafu do.  

Grammar is quite different so it is easy to make mistakes with context and word meanings as well. For some people it is easier to learn a language than others.
I'm sure that the English being taught in Germany is quite meticulous - but there are always people that get an failed result.
Your Dutch neighbors managed to make a few mistakes at international meetings.

A Dutch junior minister introduced herself at a foreign conference and said “I’m sitting in the second chamber and I’m having my first period"
(She was serving her first term in parliament)

Joseph Luns (Dutch minister of foreign affairs) was asked by John F Kennedy if he had any hobbies.
He replied : “I fok horses” Kennedy glanced at him and said “pardon? Luns replied ‘Yes, horses!” (Fok in Dutch means "breed")

Joop den Uyl introduced the Netherlands as "“we are a nation of undertakers”.  (onderneemer means entrepreneur but if translated literally is undertaker)
Of course in English "to undertake" and "undertaker" means two different things.

Pepsi slogan "the choice of a new generation" was mistranslated into Chinese as "awakens your ancestors from the dead"

Blikk:
OK, here's a question from left space: What was your book Slut about?

Madonna:
It was called Sex, my book.

Blikk:
Not in Hungary. Here it was called Slut.

Sources:
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~avondale/extra/Humor/SexAndLove/Madonna.html
http://www.bjnijmegen.nl/artikelen/bijzondere-en-opzienbarende-uitspraken-van-politici/

Wants to charge 2% royalties for transactions over $800
He is asking for "voluntary" royalties.
Because I suspect that as soon as he demands money they can potentially charge him with fraud.

The creative commons would override his copyright registration if he tried to enforce it.

Trademarking Bitcoin Cash would effectively not affect Bitcoin but would affect Bitcoin Cash or Bcash as some people prefer to call it.



Ronald also lays claims on:

text, computer program, artwork

The real Satoshi would know that someone else designed the artwork and that the code was a collaborative effort with other developers.

Ronald claims:


The real Satoshi did publish it all before 2016  and a raid in 2005 wouldn't affect his ability to prove it.

In October 2008, Satoshi published a paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing the bitcoin digital currency.

Satoshi released the Version 0.1 of bitcoin software on Sourceforge on 9 January 2009. Even prior to the release there were others involved in the development of the code. After the release the code was also maintained by others based on it being open source.

If it were a credible claim (which it is not) then Ronald defrauded everyone who worked on it for free.

In my opinion his claims are so blatantly false and so unlike Satoshi. He is denigrating and maligning the character of Satoshi.

Qualities that I believe describes the real Satoshi would be: Calm, honest, humble, intelligent, dedicated, private and altruistic.

Also Satoshi registered his birthdate as: April 5, 1975

LOL @ intactico@gmail.com as I doubt Satoshi would ever use gmail.

So from what I understand:

MeMe Information Technology Private Limited and MeFy Pty. Ltd own all the IP rights and manage and own the app.
These companies are owned by the founders and seed investors (not token holders)

MEFY tokens will only serve as a means of payment within the system,
You will also accept and use other types of fiat or cryptocurrencies.

So users have the option to use the token as payment. (But they can use fiat or other crypto as payment as well)
Or they can exchange the tokens on an exchange once they are listed there.

The tokens are effectively a store credit or gift card.

Of course he is a fraud.
So far everyone who has claimed to be Satoshi is a fraud.
Satoshi doesn't want to be found.
He is too smart and has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
If you read Satoshis posts and letters he values privacy over money.
Why would he go through all the OpSec to reveal himself ?
Why would he be altruistic and then suddenly want to be greedy ?

Much project and heavy English.

Can't really blame them for poor English here.

That makes sense for the password but why the email ?


There is an informal group of people that check ICO's and coins. I often look at Cryptodevils post history and look at the same threads. It is discussed and questions are asked on the thread. If adequate answers are given then we concentrate on checking out other projects. If not and depending on the seriousness of the accusations - a scam accusation is opened on the investigations forum and others get to view it and provide input. This is a fair way as the community gets to test the accusations. I'm really surprised that someone who has been a member since 2014 doesn't know the process.

Despite being a bit hostile you are answering some of the questions and I am quite satisfied that all the questions will get answered so I don't feel the need to make a thread in the investigations forum as I am confident it will get answered here. Ultimately investors also have to do their own research.

Trust is unmoderated. So anyone has the right to warn others if they think a warning is justified.

Answering questions - however uncomfortable they may seem is the best way to resolve concerns. If the questions are answered well then you can also refer back to them later if someone else asks them again. Ultimately investors get to make their own judgement based on the questions asked and the answers given.

The company mentioned was incorporated (according to your info and roadmap) in 2016 here:




But according to you the director of the company -


I don't quite understand that.

Either the company and its directors are involved

or

the company is not involved and the ICO is not incorporated.

How is the company related ? The way it appears in the roadmap it looks like the ICO is run by a incorporated company and ICO stakeholders become company stakeholders.

What do the token holders own ? How is their profit generated ? What rights do they have or get ?

Also there is this:


and this:



Asking questions is not trolling. Cryptodevil asked questions and you attacked his character instead.


Personally I have a few questions that I want answered about the ICO. There are a few red flags. Attacking users that ask questions and having constant comments like "good project" from accounts with low quality posts is a big red flag.

It is also not the first medical coin we have looked at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3256150.msg33915761#msg33915761
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2969401.msg30510029#msg30510029

There are still a few more questions that are unanswered regarding the ICO in previous posts. There are a few more coming that we are just verifying the facts on first.

I can also assure you that The Pharmacist does not have access to my account.  I disclosed the entire information in two posts above yours and I also messaged him.

These sorts of things are best discussed on the forum than via PM. This way it is not just basing it on my assumptions but gets a critical view as well.

The Pharmacist disagrees with me on certain viewpoints which is why I respect his opinion.  If I wanted someone to blindly agree with me I'd just ask myself.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1745604.msg17455098#msg17455098
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1752319.msg%msg_id%

Sadly scammers also often use cancer as an excuse - on the anonymous internet where people can say anything without proof it is hard to judge whether someone is stooping really low or deserves your best wishes. I really hope that you do get better. I have some personal experience with that and it is extremely unpleasant and don't wish it on anyone. I have also been personally scammed by someone claiming to have cancer when it was totally untrue.

25. If you get banned (temporary or permanently) and create a new account to continue posting / sending PMs, it's considered ban evasion. The only exception is creating a thread in Meta about your ban.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.msg7955645#msg7955645

Ban appeals are here:
banappeals-w6pquw43@theymos.e4ward.com.

In America it is also much more likely that the criminals are armed. In other countries (like most commonwealth countries) handgun ownership is almost nil and heavily restricted. There it is almost unheard of that a burglar has a gun.  So your risk of being shot by an intruder is extremely low.

In some fortunate nations - even the police don't normally carry guns. Your chance of getting shot is that low.


 United States   2016   119.6 gun related deaths/ 1 million people 89% gun ownership (71.0 of those suicides)
 Australia   2016            10.4  gun related deaths/ 1 million people 13.7% gun ownership (8 of those suicides)
  Norway   2012            17.5 gun related deaths/ 1 million people  31.3% gun ownership (16.3 of those suicides)

What it doesn't show is whether the death by homicide are gun owners or people who don't own the guns.

If you calculate an 80 year lifespan your risk of getting killed by a gun in a high gun ownership country is reasonably high so having laws to protect yourself against intruders in your own home / property would make sense.