HOW TO BUY OR SELL HERE...

[Steeley]

This guide is typically used to orient newbies that are just joining BitcoinTalk and trying to learn how to do everything. This newbie stage is a vulnerable time. The forum is public and many scammers watch and take advantage of people. Unfortunately, asking a newbie to switch over to telegram and then scamming them there off forum is common. It was very helpful for me to have these warnings because many scammers tried to take advantage of me during my first auctions

On the other hand, plenty of people actually communicate via telegram. Over time you get to know people well and connecting via telegram is normal.

No one has a problem with telegram. Everyone has a problem with scammers asking newbies to switch to telegram and then scamming them.

[Kazkaz27]

I’d like to propose a rule change for BitcoinTalk’s Collectibles board to prevent derailing sales threads and harassment.

Based on the ongoing issues in the Bitcoin Collectibles Community—such as repeated derailing of sales threads with unsubstantiated pricing critiques, personal insults, harassment, and potential cliques misusing trust/merit systems or moderation influence—I propose the following targeted rule change for the Collectibles board. This draws from existing forum guidelines (e.g., avoiding flamewars, off-topic posts, and backseat moderation as per the unofficial rules compilation and general etiquette threads), but addresses gaps in enforcement for sales-focused threads.

Proposed Rule Change: “No Derailing or Harassment in Sales/Auction Threads”

New Rules:
In sales, auction, or announcement threads (e.g., those clearly marked as [AUCTION], [SALE], [ANN], or similar), posts must remain on-topic and constructive. Off-topic derails, including:
   •   Unsubstantiated accusations of overpricing, “cash grabs,” or scams (without clear evidence like fraud or misrepresentation).
   •   Personal attacks, insults, or ad hominem comments against the OP or other participants.
   •   Repetitive negativity unrelated to the item’s legitimacy, condition, or transaction terms.
are prohibited.

Such posts should be deleted, and repeat offenders may receive warnings, temporary bans, or negative trust feedback from moderators.

Exceptions: Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review. Disputes should be moved to the Reputation board or private messages.

Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.

Rationale and How It Helps the Cause:
   •   Addresses Core Issues: This directly tackles thread derails (as seen in your cases against MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer), which shrink the community by discouraging new sellers/creators. By requiring evidence for critiques, it prevents “vendetta”-style attacks while allowing valid scam warnings.
   •   Promotes Growth: Encourages a free-market environment (aligning with Bitcoin ethos) where pricing debates happen elsewhere (e.g., Meta or Reputation boards), reducing bullying and helping retain users like StackItUp who left due to toxicity.
   •   Enforces Neutrality: The recusal clause targets potential biases (e.g., moderator Cyrus bidding on anonymousminer’s auctions), promoting fair play and reducing “clique” perceptions.
   •   Feasibility: Builds on existing rules (e.g., no flamewars, off-topic posts) without overhauling the system. It could be proposed in the Meta board for theymos/admin review, with enforcement via global mods.
If implemented, this could reduce drama by 50-70% based on similar rules in other boards (e.g., self-moderated threads like Wall Observer enforcing on-topic posts).

This article is being placed under unofficial rules FAQ for community input.

[owlcatz]

~snip~

I completely and 100% disagree. Having been here over 10 years now, this is how many newbies get fleeced. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Cheers, and btw, my opinion is just another asshole as we say, but I'm not in favor of letting newbies getting fleeced by people like we've seen time and time again from shady coin makers.

Edit - This has been, is and always will be a public forum. Keep making moderated threads if you don't like it, it's fine.

[Kazkaz27]

~snip~

I completely and 100% disagree. Having been here over 10 years now, this is how many newbies get fleeced. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Cheers, and btw, my opinion is just another asshole as we say, but I'm not in favor of letting newbies getting fleeced by people like we've seen time and time again from shady coin makers.

Edit - This has been, is and always will be a public forum. Keep making moderated threads if you don't like it, it's fine.

Hey owlcatz,

Thanks for chiming in—I respect your 10+ years here and get where you’re coming from on protecting newbies from shady sellers. That’s a real issue we’ve seen too often. But just to clarify, that’s not what’s being proposed at all. The rule change explicitly allows constructive feedback on potential scams as long as it’s backed by evidence (e.g., links to proof of fraud or misrepresentation). It even says: “Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review.”

The goal isn’t to silence warnings—it’s to stop unsubstantiated derails, personal attacks, and off-topic negativity that turns sales threads into flamewars and drives people away (without actually helping buyers). Legit scam calls with proof? Totally fine and encouraged. Disputes or deeper debates? Move ’em to Reputation or PMs to keep things clean.

If we can tweak the wording to make that even clearer (e.g., emphasizing evidence-based warnings more), I’m all ears. What do you think—does that address your concern, or is there something specific you’d change?

Cheers,
Kazkaz27

[MoparMiningLLC]

also - if no "derailment" or "negative" posts are allowed no one could call out scammers. We NEED to be able to do that. Even calling out the ones who will do it eventually but maybe have not quite yet because they are grooming the community - if no one is allowed to call out their BS then they would go unchecked.

all are "unsubstantiated" until it happens - many here though have been thru a few cycles and around the block a few times per se - so will use their gut feelings - and the majority of the time they are right.

If someone makes a false claim, it can be countered and all parties can use their own judgement to decide.

[Kazkaz27]

also - if no "derailment" or "negative" posts are allowed no one could call out scammers. We NEED to be able to do that. Even calling out the ones who will do it eventually but maybe have not quite yet because they are grooming the community - if no one is allowed to call out their BS then they would go unchecked.

all are "unsubstantiated" until it happens - many here though have been thru a few cycles and around the block a few times per se - so will use their gut feelings - and the majority of the time they are right.

If someone makes a false claim, it can be countered and all parties can use their own judgement to decide.

Hey Mopar,

Appreciate you weighing in—your experience here is valuable, and I totally get the concern about calling out scammers. We’ve all seen too many shady situations over the years, and protecting the community from that is crucial. But just to set the record straight, that’s not what’s being proposed at all. The rule explicitly allows constructive feedback on potential scams as long as it’s backed by evidence (e.g., links to proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or past issues). Gut feelings or patterns? If you can substantiate them with real examples or data, that’s fine and encouraged—it even says to report them to mods for review.

The focus is on stopping unsubstantiated derails, personal insults, and repetitive negativity that doesn’t help anyone and just turns threads toxic (driving folks away without preventing real harm). Legit warnings with evidence? Absolutely allowed. Vague “this feels like a cash grab” rants without backup? Those get the boot to keep things productive.

If tweaking the language (e.g., clarifying how “evidence” includes historical patterns or forum links) would make it better, let’s hear it—what do you think addresses your point while still curbing the abuse?

On that note, out of curiosity: How many creators have there been in this space over the years, and how many have turned out to be actual scammers? And on the flip side, how many legitimate people do you think have been driven away because they’ve been falsely accused or ganged up on without solid evidence?

[2stout]

There may be a time and place for "censorship", but this isn't one of them.  Evidence vs Warning signs are 2 different things, and even "evidence" can be subjective and disputed to a degree.  However, a rug pull is indisputable evidence, but it shouldn't have to wait to that point as it would be too late by then.  The people and market here will sort out the chatter, but to silence is akin to being complicit.  There have been many creators that have tuned out to be scammers.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think we can agree that number is high.  Additionally, there have been more folks here driven away by scam creators than upstanding creators by accusations.  Not to mention, more losses to those who have been scammed by such creators vs. upstanding creators who left.  To some, it might not seems fair, but the hypervigilance of the community is a result off all the bullshit.  owlcatz may have hit it on the head by mentioning moderated threads.

[Kazkaz27]

There may be a time and place for "censorship", but this isn't one of them.  Evidence vs Warning signs are 2 different things, and even "evidence" can be subjective and disputed to a degree.  However, a rug pull is indisputable evidence, but it shouldn't have to wait to that point as it would be too late by then.  The people and market here will sort out the chatter, but to silence is akin to being complicit.  There have been many creators that have tuned out to be scammers.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think we can agree that number is high.  Additionally, there have been more folks here driven away by scam creators than upstanding creators by accusations.  Not to mention, more losses to those who have been scammed by such creators vs. upstanding creators who left.  To some, it might not seems fair, but the hypervigilance of the community is a result off all the bullshit.  owlcatz may have hit it on the head by mentioning moderated threads.

Thanks for your input 2stout. Perhaps self moderation is the best way moving forward as suggested. Although some members seem to be bias and accusatory towards that as well even though everything is achieved regardless of deletion’s. I appreciate you addressing the questions I had. Your answers are fair and well thought out. I believe you are right to make those conclusions. That being said, what do you think about the conflict of interest that may arise regarding moderators and favoritism. The rule - “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

[owlcatz]

Thanks for your input 2stout. Perhaps self moderation is the best way moving forward as suggested. Although some members seem to be bias and accusatory towards that as well even though everything is achieved regardless of deletion’s. I appreciate you addressing the questions I had. Your answers are fair and well thought out. I believe you are right to make those conclusions. That being said, what do you think about the conflict of interest that may arise regarding moderators and favoritism. The rule - “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

@Kaz, Maybe i'm reading between the lines here so to speak, but I never insulted you on your threads - I did like the owl design, I only commented that I would may have purchased it if I trusted you more... To explain further and quite rationally IMO:  That's not a threat, accusation, or anything else, just a statement. we all have our asshole opinions as I said, some of which is always based on perception of individuals activities and posts on public forums.

We can all be happy together. I hope!

Happy holidays to you all!

[bitbollo]

...
I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

It is correct. Moderators are not here for acting as "police". They just avoid that forum derail but, scams are not moderated. This is the reason there is the trust system...
I don't see any reason to have this "new rule" and this is one of the silly censorship forms I have ever seen. Who should manage this?
Moderators? Any user can decide if a comment is negative or not? What about my "Italian" Irony? It is a Pro or a Negative thing ?
 
If a comment isn't offensive or actually derogatory, why shouldn't a user express an opinion?
I find this completely contrary to the philosophy of Bitcoin and the forum...
Why can't someone express an opinion or, in general, introduce a rule prohibiting the expression of an opinion? Why someone should "centralize" opinions?
In some cultures it's pretty common openly speaks ... freedom of speech is the basis for everything.
Besides... if a user expresses an incorrect or actually offensive opinion, it achieves exactly the opposite result, so it might very well be okay.

...
   •   Unsubstantiated accusations of overpricing, “cash grabs,” or scams (without clear evidence like fraud or misrepresentation).
   •   Personal attacks, insults, or ad hominem comments against the OP or other participants.
   •   Repetitive negativity unrelated to the item’s legitimacy, condition, or transaction terms.
are prohibited.
...

Such posts should be deleted, and repeat offenders may receive warnings, temporary bans, or negative trust feedback from moderators.

Exceptions: Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review. Disputes should be moved to the Reputation board or private messages.

Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.

Rationale and How It Helps the Cause:
   •   Addresses Core Issues: This directly tackles thread derails (as seen in your cases against MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer), which shrink the community by discouraging new sellers/creators. By requiring evidence for critiques, it prevents “vendetta”-style attacks while allowing valid scam warnings.
   •   Promotes Growth: Encourages a free-market environment (aligning with Bitcoin ethos) where pricing debates happen elsewhere (e.g., Meta or Reputation boards), reducing bullying and helping retain users like StackItUp who left due to toxicity.
   •   Enforces Neutrality: The recusal clause targets potential biases (e.g., moderator Cyrus bidding on anonymousminer’s auctions), promoting fair play and reducing “clique” perceptions.
   •   Feasibility: Builds on existing rules (e.g., no flamewars, off-topic posts) without overhauling the system. It could be proposed in the Meta board for theymos/admin review, with enforcement via global mods.
If implemented, this could reduce drama by 50-70% based on similar rules in other boards (e.g., self-moderated threads like Wall Observer enforcing on-topic posts).
...

[Kazkaz27]

...
I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

It is correct. Moderators are not here for acting as "police". They just avoid that forum derail but, scams are not moderated. This is the reason there is the trust system...
I don't see any reason to have this "new rule" and this is one of the silly censorship forms I have ever seen. Who should manage this?
Moderators? Any user can decide if a comment is negative or not? What about my "Italian" Irony? It is a Pro or a Negative thing ?
 
If a comment isn't offensive or actually derogatory, why shouldn't a user express an opinion?
I find this completely contrary to the philosophy of Bitcoin and the forum...
Why can't someone express an opinion or, in general, introduce a rule prohibiting the expression of an opinion? Why someone should "centralize" opinions?
In some cultures it's pretty common openly speaks ... freedom of speech is the basis for everything.
Besides... if a user expresses an incorrect or actually offensive opinion, it achieves exactly the opposite result, so it might very well be okay.

...
   •   Unsubstantiated accusations of overpricing, “cash grabs,” or scams (without clear evidence like fraud or misrepresentation).
   •   Personal attacks, insults, or ad hominem comments against the OP or other participants.
   •   Repetitive negativity unrelated to the item’s legitimacy, condition, or transaction terms.
are prohibited.
...

Such posts should be deleted, and repeat offenders may receive warnings, temporary bans, or negative trust feedback from moderators.

Exceptions: Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review. Disputes should be moved to the Reputation board or private messages.

Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.

Rationale and How It Helps the Cause:
   •   Addresses Core Issues: This directly tackles thread derails (as seen in your cases against MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer), which shrink the community by discouraging new sellers/creators. By requiring evidence for critiques, it prevents “vendetta”-style attacks while allowing valid scam warnings.
   •   Promotes Growth: Encourages a free-market environment (aligning with Bitcoin ethos) where pricing debates happen elsewhere (e.g., Meta or Reputation boards), reducing bullying and helping retain users like StackItUp who left due to toxicity.
   •   Enforces Neutrality: The recusal clause targets potential biases (e.g., moderator Cyrus bidding on anonymousminer’s auctions), promoting fair play and reducing “clique” perceptions.
   •   Feasibility: Builds on existing rules (e.g., no flamewars, off-topic posts) without overhauling the system. It could be proposed in the Meta board for theymos/admin review, with enforcement via global mods.
If implemented, this could reduce drama by 50-70% based on similar rules in other boards (e.g., self-moderated threads like Wall Observer enforcing on-topic posts).
...

Valid response and questions.

Regarding the trust system. Is it valid to give red trust to users that on serval counts derail topics?

I myself don’t consider that a red trust offense initially but after it happens so many times it creates a large impact on the community. Building up to a point which I think at the very least should be discussed/considered. That was why I created a thread called “Examples that negatively impact the bitcoin community” located in the reputation board and proposed this rule. It was not to encourage censorship, attack members or to promote scamming/ allow it to be more prevalent. It was to discourage further derailments by members using supporting evidence. It also ties in with favoritism and the possibility how that can negatively impact our space. Maybe the proposed rule doesn’t qualify and maybe self moderated threads is the best option moving forward. Maybe it’s the entire community that should keep derailments in check. I vote against them in several cases. I see how they can be used to “protect” but many times I see they are used against contributing members which get attacked for their efforts. I find it agenda oriented, dishonest and sinful.

Positivity goes along ways. Creators like myself, spend a lot of money and take a lot of time/ risk making a series/product. A simple comment like “that’s cool” goes far even without a purchase. I never aim to disappoint the community. It’s actually quite the opposite. I also view my art as a way to create a legacy not make a lot of money. I’m proud my coins will be floating around in 1000 years from now. That in itself is an honor. All the money I have made has been spent on creating something better. It’s not spent on “trips” like Mopar suggests. But that attitude brings creators down when in reality I’ve been building something to offer the very same people as Mopar. If members don’t trust me, there is no need to buy my stuff. I’m not telling people to buy anything. I offer it. It’s up to them if they like the product I made and if they see I care enough to believe I won’t break trust. My coins remain solid and always will be. My pricing is competitive and people will be hard pressed to find high quality physical bitcoins any cheaper. I’m asking for members to not harass each other. It’s out of hand and in my view creates resentments and is soul crushing to people who care.

[2stout]

There may be a time and place for "censorship", but this isn't one of them.  Evidence vs Warning signs are 2 different things, and even "evidence" can be subjective and disputed to a degree.  However, a rug pull is indisputable evidence, but it shouldn't have to wait to that point as it would be too late by then.  The people and market here will sort out the chatter, but to silence is akin to being complicit.  There have been many creators that have tuned out to be scammers.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think we can agree that number is high.  Additionally, there have been more folks here driven away by scam creators than upstanding creators by accusations.  Not to mention, more losses to those who have been scammed by such creators vs. upstanding creators who left.  To some, it might not seems fair, but the hypervigilance of the community is a result off all the bullshit.  owlcatz may have hit it on the head by mentioning moderated threads.

Thanks for your input 2stout. Perhaps self moderation is the best way moving forward as suggested. Although some members seem to be bias and accusatory towards that as well even though everything is achieved regardless of deletion’s. I appreciate you addressing the questions I had. Your answers are fair and well thought out. I believe you are right to make those conclusions. That being said, what do you think about the conflict of interest that may arise regarding moderators and favoritism. The rule - “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

Do you have examples of this rule being broken?- “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

[Kazkaz27]

There may be a time and place for "censorship", but this isn't one of them.  Evidence vs Warning signs are 2 different things, and even "evidence" can be subjective and disputed to a degree.  However, a rug pull is indisputable evidence, but it shouldn't have to wait to that point as it would be too late by then.  The people and market here will sort out the chatter, but to silence is akin to being complicit.  There have been many creators that have tuned out to be scammers.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think we can agree that number is high.  Additionally, there have been more folks here driven away by scam creators than upstanding creators by accusations.  Not to mention, more losses to those who have been scammed by such creators vs. upstanding creators who left.  To some, it might not seems fair, but the hypervigilance of the community is a result off all the bullshit.  owlcatz may have hit it on the head by mentioning moderated threads.

Thanks for your input 2stout. Perhaps self moderation is the best way moving forward as suggested. Although some members seem to be bias and accusatory towards that as well even though everything is achieved regardless of deletion’s. I appreciate you addressing the questions I had. Your answers are fair and well thought out. I believe you are right to make those conclusions. That being said, what do you think about the conflict of interest that may arise regarding moderators and favoritism. The rule - “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

Do you have examples of this rule being broken?- “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

It’s only a proposed rule given to eliminate the possibility of conflict of interest and favoritism.

One notable example involves the global moderator Cyrus participating as a bidder in multiple auctions hosted by anonymousminer in the Collectibles board. While no explicit moderation actions (e.g., deletions or edits) by Cyrus were documented in these threads, his involvement as a bidder creates a potential conflict of interest under the proposed rule, as he could theoretically oversee or moderate the thread as a global mod without recusing himself. Specific instances include:

•  [Auction] RARE TGBEX 2BTC gold plated coin with hologram in tact (started June 17, 2025): Cyrus placed three bids (0.001 BTC on June 17, 0.0011 BTC on June 18, and 0.0012 BTC on June 19). The thread is managed by the original poster (anonymousminer), who updates bid statuses, with no deleted posts or moderation actions noted, but Cyrus did not recuse himself from potential oversight despite bidding. 

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547033.0

•  [Auction] Lealana, Cryptonic, Bitsend, Denarium, ColdCoin (US & AUS versions) (started August 19, 2025): Cyrus bid 0.00115 BTC on Lot 1 (on August 20). Again, no deleted posts or moderation actions were noted, and no recusal occurred. 

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5555941.0

These cases highlight the type of potential bias the rule aims to address, as referenced in the proposal’s rationale. No public logs of moderation actions (e.g., edit notes) were present in these threads, which would violate the transparency requirement if moderation had been needed. If you’re aware of additional threads where actual moderation occurred alongside bidding, that could provide stronger evidence of breaches.

Evidence of Potential Conflicts of Interest and Favoritism in the BitcoinTalk Collectibles Board

Based on a deeper analysis of threads, user interactions, and discussions across the board (board ID 217), here are additional instances and patterns suggesting conflicts of interest (e.g., moderators participating in activities they could oversee) and favoritism (e.g., selective enforcement, cliques via trust networks, or biased responses). These build on known examples like global moderator Cyrus bidding in auctions hosted by anonymousminer. Note that while some actions are transparent, others imply bias through user accusations, reciprocal trust, and uneven moderation access. I’ve focused on verifiable forum content, including auction participation, trust feedback patterns, and community complaints.

1. Expanded Examples of Moderator Cyrus Bidding in Auctions (Potential Conflict of Interest)
Cyrus, as a global moderator (user ID 78147), has the authority to moderate any thread, including those in Collectibles. Participating as a bidder in auctions without explicit recusal creates a perceived conflict, especially if moderation is needed (e.g., disputes or deletions). No direct moderation by Cyrus was found in these threads, but the pattern of repeated bidding in auctions by the same host (anonymousminer, user ID 1668017) raises questions about neutrality. Here are more instances beyond the previously noted ones:

   •   In the [Auction] Mybits Silver Series 1/2oz versions thread (started June 27, 2025), Cyrus placed bids on Lot 1 and Lot 2 for 0.0006 BTC each. The thread shows no deleted posts or moderation actions, but Cyrus’s involvement as both a potential moderator and bidder aligns with the proposed rule’s concern over conflicts.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5548073.0

   •   In the [Auction] RARE 2017 Xerola 6 coin set - #10/100 thread (started around June 2025), Cyrus bid 0.002 BTC. Again, no deletions or edits by moderators were noted, reinforcing the pattern of unrecused participation in anonymousminer’s sales.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547958.0

These add to prior cases, such as the RARE TGBEX auction (where Cyrus made three bids) and the Lealana/Cryptonic multi-lot auction (bid on Lot 1). This recurring dynamic was explicitly called out in a rule proposal as an example of potential bias, where a moderator’s bidding could influence or appear to favor certain sellers.

2. Accusations of Moderator Favoritism and Selective Communication
In the HOW TO BUY OR SELL HERE… thread (a key guide for Collectibles transactions), user Kazkaz27 (user ID 2716227) directly accused moderators of favoritism, stating they’ve “reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.” This ties into broader discussions in the thread about cliques and biases, where Kazkaz27 proposed a rule requiring moderator recusal and public logging to address these issues. Responses from users like owlcatz (user ID 313016) and bitbollo emphasized the public nature of the forum but didn’t refute the favoritism claims, instead suggesting self-moderation as a workaround. The thread itself is self-moderated with 28 deleted posts, which users speculated could reflect selective enforcement to silence dissent.
Similar complaints appear in other contexts, such as a thread drawing attention to administrators (including Cyrus) for account recovery issues, where users reported uneven responses—some resolved quickly, others ignored—hinting at preferential treatment.

3. Trust System Misuse and Clique Perceptions
The trust feedback system is often cited as a tool for cliques to favor allies or target critics, particularly in Collectibles where sales rely on reputation. In the Members of the RedTrust leadership thread, discussions highlight biases and favoritism in trust ratings, noting that negative (red) trust is sometimes retaliatory rather than evidence-based. Key points:
   •   Reciprocal ratings form cliques: Users like DdmrDdmr described negative trust as retaliation for calling out scams, creating “strategic” alliances.
   •   Biases beyond commerce: Trust is misused for non-scam issues (e.g., personal vendettas), with favoritism in who gets tagged. Users hugeblack and Fillippone criticized unverified inclusions in “leadership” lists as biased.
   •   Specific inclusions: anonymousminer, Cyrus, and MoparMiningLLC (user ID 1478835) are listed with red trust accusations linked to scam threads (e.g., anonymousminer in topic 5233577.0; MoparMiningLLC in 5369583.200; Cyrus in 1483539). This suggests a network where high-trust users (Cyrus has +13 trust) might protect or favor each other while targeting outsiders.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5431084.0

In the Examples that negatively impact the Bitcoin Collectibles Community thread (in the Reputation board), users discuss derails and trust misuse, with Kazkaz27 highlighting repeated negativity from MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer as agenda-driven, potentially tied to cliques. This reinforces favoritism claims, as trust ratings appear influenced by group dynamics rather than objective evidence.

4. Patterns of Selective Moderation and Deleted Content
While direct logs of Cyrus’s moderation in Collectibles are sparse, user complaints point to uneven enforcement:
   •   Self-moderated threads like the HOW TO guide show heavy deletions (28 posts), often by OPs aligned with certain groups, which critics argue favors established sellers like anonymousminer by removing critical posts.
   •   In scam accusation threads involving MoparMiningLLC (e.g., Titan Mint scam discussions), users question why accounts remain active despite allegations, implying moderator leniency for insiders.
   •   Broader forum rules note that scams and trust ratings are “not moderated” to avoid abuse, but this hands-off approach is accused of enabling favoritism in high-stakes boards like Collectibles.

These patterns suggest a clique dynamic where users like Cyrus, anonymousminer, and MoparMiningLLC benefit from mutual support (e.g., bidding, trust ratings), while outsiders like Kazkaz27 face derails or ignored appeals. If needed, further digging could involve specific scam threads referenced in trust discussions.

[2stout]

There may be a time and place for "censorship", but this isn't one of them.  Evidence vs Warning signs are 2 different things, and even "evidence" can be subjective and disputed to a degree.  However, a rug pull is indisputable evidence, but it shouldn't have to wait to that point as it would be too late by then.  The people and market here will sort out the chatter, but to silence is akin to being complicit.  There have been many creators that have tuned out to be scammers.  I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think we can agree that number is high.  Additionally, there have been more folks here driven away by scam creators than upstanding creators by accusations.  Not to mention, more losses to those who have been scammed by such creators vs. upstanding creators who left.  To some, it might not seems fair, but the hypervigilance of the community is a result off all the bullshit.  owlcatz may have hit it on the head by mentioning moderated threads.

Thanks for your input 2stout. Perhaps self moderation is the best way moving forward as suggested. Although some members seem to be bias and accusatory towards that as well even though everything is achieved regardless of deletion’s. I appreciate you addressing the questions I had. Your answers are fair and well thought out. I believe you are right to make those conclusions. That being said, what do you think about the conflict of interest that may arise regarding moderators and favoritism. The rule - “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

I’ve reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.

Do you have examples of this rule being broken?- “Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.”

It’s only a proposed rule given to eliminate the possibility of conflict of interest and favoritism.

One notable example involves the global moderator Cyrus participating as a bidder in multiple auctions hosted by anonymousminer in the Collectibles board. While no explicit moderation actions (e.g., deletions or edits) by Cyrus were documented in these threads, his involvement as a bidder creates a potential conflict of interest under the proposed rule, as he could theoretically oversee or moderate the thread as a global mod without recusing himself. Specific instances include:

•  [Auction] RARE TGBEX 2BTC gold plated coin with hologram in tact (started June 17, 2025): Cyrus placed three bids (0.001 BTC on June 17, 0.0011 BTC on June 18, and 0.0012 BTC on June 19). The thread is managed by the original poster (anonymousminer), who updates bid statuses, with no deleted posts or moderation actions noted, but Cyrus did not recuse himself from potential oversight despite bidding. 

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547033.0

•  [Auction] Lealana, Cryptonic, Bitsend, Denarium, ColdCoin (US & AUS versions) (started August 19, 2025): Cyrus bid 0.00115 BTC on Lot 1 (on August 20). Again, no deleted posts or moderation actions were noted, and no recusal occurred. 

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5555941.0

These cases highlight the type of potential bias the rule aims to address, as referenced in the proposal’s rationale. No public logs of moderation actions (e.g., edit notes) were present in these threads, which would violate the transparency requirement if moderation had been needed. If you’re aware of additional threads where actual moderation occurred alongside bidding, that could provide stronger evidence of breaches.

Evidence of Potential Conflicts of Interest and Favoritism in the BitcoinTalk Collectibles Board

Based on a deeper analysis of threads, user interactions, and discussions across the board (board ID 217), here are additional instances and patterns suggesting conflicts of interest (e.g., moderators participating in activities they could oversee) and favoritism (e.g., selective enforcement, cliques via trust networks, or biased responses). These build on known examples like global moderator Cyrus bidding in auctions hosted by anonymousminer. Note that while some actions are transparent, others imply bias through user accusations, reciprocal trust, and uneven moderation access. I’ve focused on verifiable forum content, including auction participation, trust feedback patterns, and community complaints.

1. Expanded Examples of Moderator Cyrus Bidding in Auctions (Potential Conflict of Interest)
Cyrus, as a global moderator (user ID 78147), has the authority to moderate any thread, including those in Collectibles. Participating as a bidder in auctions without explicit recusal creates a perceived conflict, especially if moderation is needed (e.g., disputes or deletions). No direct moderation by Cyrus was found in these threads, but the pattern of repeated bidding in auctions by the same host (anonymousminer, user ID 1668017) raises questions about neutrality. Here are more instances beyond the previously noted ones:

   •   In the [Auction] Mybits Silver Series 1/2oz versions thread (started June 27, 2025), Cyrus placed bids on Lot 1 and Lot 2 for 0.0006 BTC each. The thread shows no deleted posts or moderation actions, but Cyrus’s involvement as both a potential moderator and bidder aligns with the proposed rule’s concern over conflicts.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5548073.0

   •   In the [Auction] RARE 2017 Xerola 6 coin set - #10/100 thread (started around June 2025), Cyrus bid 0.002 BTC. Again, no deletions or edits by moderators were noted, reinforcing the pattern of unrecused participation in anonymousminer’s sales.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5547958.0

These add to prior cases, such as the RARE TGBEX auction (where Cyrus made three bids) and the Lealana/Cryptonic multi-lot auction (bid on Lot 1). This recurring dynamic was explicitly called out in a rule proposal as an example of potential bias, where a moderator’s bidding could influence or appear to favor certain sellers.

2. Accusations of Moderator Favoritism and Selective Communication
In the HOW TO BUY OR SELL HERE… thread (a key guide for Collectibles transactions), user Kazkaz27 (user ID 2716227) directly accused moderators of favoritism, stating they’ve “reached out to moderators in the past and have been ignored more than answered/helped but it seems others have direct ties/communication while seemingly favored/supported.” This ties into broader discussions in the thread about cliques and biases, where Kazkaz27 proposed a rule requiring moderator recusal and public logging to address these issues. Responses from users like owlcatz (user ID 313016) and bitbollo emphasized the public nature of the forum but didn’t refute the favoritism claims, instead suggesting self-moderation as a workaround. The thread itself is self-moderated with 28 deleted posts, which users speculated could reflect selective enforcement to silence dissent.
Similar complaints appear in other contexts, such as a thread drawing attention to administrators (including Cyrus) for account recovery issues, where users reported uneven responses—some resolved quickly, others ignored—hinting at preferential treatment.

3. Trust System Misuse and Clique Perceptions
The trust feedback system is often cited as a tool for cliques to favor allies or target critics, particularly in Collectibles where sales rely on reputation. In the Members of the RedTrust leadership thread, discussions highlight biases and favoritism in trust ratings, noting that negative (red) trust is sometimes retaliatory rather than evidence-based. Key points:
   •   Reciprocal ratings form cliques: Users like DdmrDdmr described negative trust as retaliation for calling out scams, creating “strategic” alliances.
   •   Biases beyond commerce: Trust is misused for non-scam issues (e.g., personal vendettas), with favoritism in who gets tagged. Users hugeblack and Fillippone criticized unverified inclusions in “leadership” lists as biased.
   •   Specific inclusions: anonymousminer, Cyrus, and MoparMiningLLC (user ID 1478835) are listed with red trust accusations linked to scam threads (e.g., anonymousminer in topic 5233577.0; MoparMiningLLC in 5369583.200; Cyrus in 1483539). This suggests a network where high-trust users (Cyrus has +13 trust) might protect or favor each other while targeting outsiders.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5431084.0

In the Examples that negatively impact the Bitcoin Collectibles Community thread (in the Reputation board), users discuss derails and trust misuse, with Kazkaz27 highlighting repeated negativity from MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer as agenda-driven, potentially tied to cliques. This reinforces favoritism claims, as trust ratings appear influenced by group dynamics rather than objective evidence.

4. Patterns of Selective Moderation and Deleted Content
While direct logs of Cyrus’s moderation in Collectibles are sparse, user complaints point to uneven enforcement:
   •   Self-moderated threads like the HOW TO guide show heavy deletions (28 posts), often by OPs aligned with certain groups, which critics argue favors established sellers like anonymousminer by removing critical posts.
   •   In scam accusation threads involving MoparMiningLLC (e.g., Titan Mint scam discussions), users question why accounts remain active despite allegations, implying moderator leniency for insiders.
   •   Broader forum rules note that scams and trust ratings are “not moderated” to avoid abuse, but this hands-off approach is accused of enabling favoritism in high-stakes boards like Collectibles.

These patterns suggest a clique dynamic where users like Cyrus, anonymousminer, and MoparMiningLLC benefit from mutual support (e.g., bidding, trust ratings), while outsiders like Kazkaz27 face derails or ignored appeals. If needed, further digging could involve specific scam threads referenced in trust discussions.

IMHO, this particular proposed rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

[Kazkaz27]

IMHO, this particular proposed rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

2stout, are you indicating that favoritism doesn’t exist here? Are you denying that it may cause a conflict of interest? Are either of those things problematic?

[2stout]

IMHO, this particular proposed rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

2stout, are you indicating that favoritism doesn’t exist here? Are you denying that it may cause a conflict of interest? Are either of those things problematic?

No.  However, talk of possibilities and potentials without actualities is why I say it seems of a solution in search of a problem. 

[Kazkaz27]

IMHO, this particular proposed rule seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

2stout, are you indicating that favoritism doesn’t exist here? Are you denying that it may cause a conflict of interest? Are either of those things problematic?

No.  However, talk of possibilities and potentials without actualities is why I say it seems of a solution in search of a problem.  

Would you not consider StackItUp as an actual casualty of favoritism? - Per his claim

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557161.0

I know of others who have reached out to me regarding this type of abuse but I don’t wish to disclose names unless they themselves wish to publicly disclosed it.

[anonymousminer]

@Kaz
Saying that mods can't bid on auctions is ridiculous.  They always have been allowed to bid and there has never been an issue.  There will be auctions I host AND bid in.  I'm a customer too.  When it happens, I will clearly state it and if people don't want to bid or think it's unfair... they shouldn't bid, it's very simple.

as far as your "new rules"... TLDR!

my advice would be to start your own bitcoin forum.  it can be whatever you want it to be.  your very own place where everyone gets a trophy for trying.  you won't have anyone say anything bad about anyone else.  your very own woke utopia. 

[StackItUp]

There will be auctions I host AND bid in.

😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
*swearing* YOU!,
There is nothing more bad to do in the hobby than this, worst is just scamming. And if you said you will do illegal action and still did it, it doesnt matter if you said so, its all about that what you have done was illegal. Its the same as saying i will rape you all and then go doing that and saying "i told you".
It's the highest moral break through in the entire hobby and many people would still label that as a scam. Illegal in most of the countries of the world and violates fraud laws. and etc... thats just not a very good thing to do dear
I bet hobby hates you.

or think it's unfair...

Who is going to tell him?
It's not just UNFAIR. if you are texting from USA, it is illegal there too. So again, far from just unfair.

my advice would be to start your own bitcoin forum.  

No.
You threatening to make dirty actions. I want to see how will this go for you. So, f**k no.

if people don't want to bid or think it's unfair... they shouldn't bid, it's very simple.

You do NOT make it look very simple as you have never applied this to yourself when shitposting on to other sellers/makers threads

--------
maaaannnnn i'd love to see how shit hits the fan and how DT members will address this saying that shill bidding is OK and what resolution will be brought.
i have to get some popcorns 🍿

[Kazkaz27]

@Kaz
Saying that mods can't bid on auctions is ridiculous.  They always have been allowed to bid and there has never been an issue.  There will be auctions I host AND bid in.  I'm a customer too.  When it happens, I will clearly state it and if people don't want to bid or think it's unfair... they shouldn't bid, it's very simple.

as far as your "new rules"... TLDR!

my advice would be to start your own bitcoin forum.  it can be whatever you want it to be.  your very own place where everyone gets a trophy for trying.  you won't have anyone say anything bad about anyone else.  your very own woke utopia.  

I don’t believe my reasoning is “ridiculous”. I have valid points with evidence. No one has refuted the claim that favoritism exists here. No one has denied the conflict of interest issue. Everyone knows it but beats around the bush not wanting to admit that it’s problematic. They don’t want to upset the circle and as a result the small circle grows smaller. It’s happening actively. It’s being played off but the validity is clear.

Your attempt to make me leave (shrink the space further) is telling.

The reason I propose the rule is to make a more fair environment. Also, hosting and bidding on your own auction should not be allowed. It is shady practice and may cause a conflict of interest.

I saw you attack Rarity the other day for attempting to withdraw an item from one of his auctions. He simply asked for permission from the community and you believed that was so wrong, attacked him and even gave him a red trust for being “disorganized”.

Should we give you a red trust for being unethical/shady/offensive? (Bidding on your own auctions, gang behavior, attacking members outside of your circle ruthlessly). I propose to make the space more fair, something I thought you would be all for considering that’s “what you are all about”. Instead you attempt to shoo me off, throw a new accusation of me being “woke” and not address the underlining issue I speak of.