[ENDED] ChipMixer Signature Campaign | Sr Member+

[Scheede]

I wonder what will happen when Chipmixer gets (inevitably so) hit by authorities. Those damn cops hate mixing services it seems.. more and more keep going down. It will be a sig campaign apocalypse. The rest of the campaign's rates are a joke and last a couple of weeks at best.

The authorities may or may not shut CM down one day. If so, as Suchmoon said, there will be roughly 60 users that earned a lot from that campaign during the months, thus still happy and wealthy, looking for the next campaign(s) to open up.

I would guess the Chipmixer-crew (if not imprissoned ) will use their skills and experience to start the next one, new campaigns will arise (lets call them blenderino, blendissimo, blentastic) and Don Quixote will continue fighting windmills.

[1715019395]

1715019395

[1715019395]

1715019395

[1715019395]

1715019395

[1715019395]

1715019395

[Slow death]

I hope the US are also sending the same threats to all US banks...

the government will just fine the banks, and then the banks will promise to strictly follow the laws, and everything will be resolved as if there had never been a problem

[The Cryptovator]

I think @DarkStar_ need to create a new thread contain title "Chipmixer Campaign Discussion". Seems always someone's bumping thread unnecessarily and start discussion.

[jackg]

I think @DarkStar_ need to create a new thread contain title "Chipmixer Campaign Discussion". Seems always someone's bumping thread unnecessarily and start discussion.

Wed have to keep bumping that one so it won't save anything.


ChipMixer came when bitmixer shut down (maybe a few weeks before) another service will likely do the same... Its got to be a lucrative business for ChipMixer to do so well heere and keep the campaign going for so long, we're on week 128 and the escrow account has always been funded on time (afaik)...

[DarkStar_]

Payments sent for this week. c4a0f331801d86ba1ac094c4b43541d5b2cf397ebd61f71b209ace5c61851067

[Kakmakr]

Unfortunately my journey with my family in ChipMixer has come to an end, I am saying family because it felt like a family to me. This Signature campaign are filled with some of the best posters on this forum and DarkStar_ has run this campaign with perfection.

Thank you DarkStar_ for the opportunity to post for this Signature campaign and Thank you for ChipMixer for making it possible. It was a honor  posting for something you truly believe in, namely "Financial Privacy"  

I hope you will welcome me back, if a spot becomes available in the future.    ---< Enjoy the journey >---

[DarkStar_]

Payments for this week of the campaign have been sent. bfe07e70180fd6c07d2f9339ad0f68dc1fa5844bb32ada7d31404a0172ceb7bc

[PHI1618]

I apply because Kakmakr has left the campaign.  I wanted to take a chance


Username: PHI1618
Post Count: 3377
BTC Address (must be SegWit): bc1qzl8gvg3s935l40rupw7ps76dsk903xntqjru7f

[TryNinja]

I apply because Kakmakr has left the campaign.  I wanted to take a chance

The spreadsheets shows there is no open slot.

"Slots: 57/57 Filled"

Also... "Trust: +1 / =0 / -1"

[witcher_sense]

I apply because Kakmakr has left the campaign.  I wanted to take a chance


Username: PHI1618
Post Count: 3377
BTC Address (must be SegWit): bc1qzl8gvg3s935l40rupw7ps76dsk903xntqjru7f

It doesn't work that way. Even if someone leaves the campaign or is disqualified, you still have to wait for the opening of free positions to be announced.
Making an application while the title says it's full is an absolutely stupid idea.

[tbct_mt2]

There is one exception for extremely high trusted users but in such cases applicants suggested by manager to apply through PMs, not in the topic.

Note: If the campaign is full, but you are a very trusted member of the community, feel free to apply. I recommend PMing me to get a faster response. Please explicitly state that you are applying for an exception. Simply being DT1 is not enough.

[DarkStar_]

Also... "Trust: +1 / =0 / -1"

Speaking of that, I've finally updated the campaign rules to utilize the new trust system. It now reads this:

8. Receiving a valid contract violation flag, a valid "high risk" flag or having more negative trust feedback from DT1 and DT2 than positive trust feedback may cause you to be removed, with or without payment.

This rule goes into effect next payment round. If you disagree with these changes and wish to leave the campaign for whatever reason, please let me know. As far as I'm aware, this change should not effect anyone currently in the campaign.

[HCP]

Speaking of that, I've finally updated the campaign rules to utilize the new trust system. It now reads this:

Is that "common sense" I am seeing?? on bitcointalk??!?

Seriously tho, as I read it, that seems like a relatively "sensible" update to the rules... removes the whole "feedback wars" scenario from play. That is to say, people aren't likely to get nuked from the campaign simply because they get on the wrong side of a DT1/2 member who gives them negative trust for something stupid and/or inconsequential...

[LoyceV]

Seriously tho, as I read it, that seems like a relatively "sensible" update to the rules... removes the whole "feedback wars" scenario from play. That is to say, people aren't likely to get nuked from the campaign simply because they get on the wrong side of a DT1/2 member who gives them negative trust for something stupid and/or inconsequential...

That means someone like bill gator () wouldn't be removed under the current rules.

[HCP]

That means someone like bill gator wouldn't be removed under the current rules.

There will likely always be "edge" cases that "break" any given set of rules... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bill's was a particularly polarising instance... as there are a number of DT members with very firm opinions on account sales. Also, the way that the entire situation was handled by both sides wasn't particularly great in my opinion.

I was talking more of the "likes lemons" scenario  Having said that, I believe DarkStar_ has already exercised commonsense in a previous instance where a user was tagged for something that wasn't necessarily an attempted scam (I think it was HabBear from memory? ) they were given a chance to sort it out instead of just simply removing them from the campaign.

I guess my point is that the whole "not necessarily against the forums rules, but frowned upon"-type tagging can, in my opinion, be a bit harsh at times... especially when some members operate what is effectively a "zero tolerance with no chance of appeal" approach to trust.

[DireWolfM14]

I guess my point is that the whole "not necessarily against the forums rules, but frowned upon"-type tagging can, in my opinion, be a bit harsh at times...

Technically speaking, scamming people isn't against the (non-existent) "forum rules" either, but I doubt DarkStar_ would allow a proven scammer to remain on this campaign, even if he still had more positive than negative reviews.

especially when some members operate what is effectively a "zero tolerance with no chance of appeal" approach to trust.

I'm not one of those who red-tagged bill gator's account, but I do count myself as one of those who have a zero-tolerance policy for account sales.  It's a fraud from the word "go."  Having said that, I really felt bad for bill when he was removed from this campaign.  I think it was the right move for the health of the campaign, advertisers need to be trusted to be effective.

[suchmoon]

Seriously tho, as I read it, that seems like a relatively "sensible" update to the rules... removes the whole "feedback wars" scenario from play. That is to say, people aren't likely to get nuked from the campaign simply because they get on the wrong side of a DT1/2 member who gives them negative trust for something stupid and/or inconsequential...

That means someone like bill gator () wouldn't be removed under the current rules.

The way I read it, it says "may cause" and DarkStar_ can still remove or not remove anyone of any reason, as it should be.

[DarkStar_]

Seriously tho, as I read it, that seems like a relatively "sensible" update to the rules... removes the whole "feedback wars" scenario from play. That is to say, people aren't likely to get nuked from the campaign simply because they get on the wrong side of a DT1/2 member who gives them negative trust for something stupid and/or inconsequential...

That means someone like bill gator () wouldn't be removed under the current rules.

The way I read it, it says "may cause" and DarkStar_ can still remove or not remove anyone of any reason, as it should be.

It's pretty much just getting rid of the blanket "you receive DT2 negative trust, you get removed" policy as a negative is no longer as harsh as it once was. It's intentionally vauge enough to provide a bit of clarification but to also allow me to handle things on a case by case basis.

[jackg]

I think it's a good move anyway, better reflection of the current trust system.

I don't know if the "trade with extreme caution" thing is still going though if that comes from a similar system than what you've suggested?

[Quickseller]

I want to point out that the only way someone could have this information is if they are conducting de-facto surveillance on the entire forum on an ongoing basis. There is no other way to detect the start/end dates of signature campaign like this, nor the 'users', 'posts', and 'deleted' columns. This is further evidence that all posts made by anyone is being collected (surveilled). This is evidence that this person has a database of every post in the forum.

I have been unable to not rule out anything this person is doing except conducting surveillance on forum members.

I consider this to be especially ironic considering that ChipMixer is paying this person to advertise a service that claims to have "reinvented mixing for your *privacy*". I think this makes about as much sense as Casey Anthony advertising for a product that claims to keep your young children safe.


Just my two sats...