Quote from: noormcs5 on Today at 04:56:58 PM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 04:52:55 PM

Quote from: noormcs5 on Today at 04:44:10 PM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 04:35:20 PM

Quote from: Naficopa on Today at 03:52:46 PM

2 - It would be possible if DT members stopped giving red trust to all participants of the 1xBit signature campaign.

I'm not in favor of leaving negative feedback on the member account of this subscription campaign, but I'm in favor of leaving neutral feedback and after the person leaves the campaign, remove it. I think it's the most sensible

How come it is more appropriate to remove the feedback once the person has left the campaign ? A person has promoted a scam site for weeks/months and once he stop promoting it (or the campaigns stops), you remove the red feedback . In that case, the person has nothing to lose as he can continue apply in campaigns. The persons have promoted scam site for money and hence the tag should remain forever.

there are people who change, you cannot think that people do not change. today they can make mistakes and tomorrow they will be people who have changed and started fighting scams. that's what I'm talking about

Yes mistakes do happen and people tends to change their opinion. But for that people need to quit before the end of the signature campaign.
If anyone quits now , we can think he has changed his mind but if they say that they changed their mind once the signature campaign has ended, then at least i can't believe them. Undecided

I understand this part, I left negative feedback on the OP account because I don't think it's fair what his site does to people, they are stealing and cheating people. but I didn't leave negative feedback on the signature campaign participants' account because honestly they already entered the campaign with negative feedback and then it's up to them to analyze if they think it's fair and correct to be promoting a scam site, I prefer to let it be themselves to put their hands on their conscience and analyze whether it is fair and correct to promote a scam site.

Quote from: Naficopa on Today at 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 04:35:20 PM

Quote from: Naficopa on Today at 03:52:46 PM

Actually, the advice is good, but not posssible to introduce due to 1xBit policy and past situation on Bitcointalk.
1 - 1xBit is fully anonymous and will remain so, so for sure no one will be asked for KYC verification (However I admit that I would prefer the verification to be. Hopefully this will change someday and help eliminate a lot of misunderstanding.)

this: " 1xBit is fully anonymous ", I wonder if they are protecting customers or are they hiding from the authorities? it's not possible that they prefer to receive negative feedback here on the forum and have a bad reputation and still not accept giving data from people who supposedly they think are lying even when the account owners themselves have allowed them to give their data to DT members evaluate the data that the security team of that site has that proves that certain customers are cheating.

To tell the truth, I don't know what their goals are, but the explanation seems to make sense (about anonimity):

Quote from: 1xbit_official on March 17, 2022, 01:20:54 PM

That would surely lift most of the complaints off, but back in 2015 our intentions were to make as anonymous casino as possible (when crypto and all that stuff appeared).
Ain't much changed since then - we added email KYC and that's all what have changed about anonymity.

Despite the fact that if someone would like to, he could probably buy an identity, as I wrote, the implementation of the KYC requirement would definitely solve a lot complaints. Probably, 1xbit analysts judge it differently.

i still think they are just using this argument that they are anonymous just because they want to hide from governments and continue with their scam