New sig campaign: CoinRoyale
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinroyale-sig-campaign-earn-004-btcweek-promoting-the-best-bitcoin-casino-947043
Payment: 0.04 BTC per week. We will deposit your earnings into your CoinRoyale account by the end of each week (every Thursday 4pm PST).
Campaign Requirement: Senior/Hero/Legendary rank, with no negative trust.
Post Requirement: Min 20 constructive posts per week, at least half of it have to be in the Gambling section (not including Games & Rounds).
Availability: 10/20 slots available.
To Join: Post your CoinRoyale username, current forum rank + post count in this thread.
Topic: Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns - page 148. (Read 17849 times)
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
Bitmixer is your best bet once you hit Full Member status (which you likely will once you make enough posts). The payouts are weekly and automated and there's no minimum post requirement so you can do 1 or 50 per week.
The other great thing about bitmixer imo is that you don't have a human who has to figure out your pay and send it. It's all automated so that it happens on-time and without any of the "o sorry i fell asleep at the wheel" bullshit that humans do.
and they don't require that you have account in their site or something, that might get some % of your gain when you withdraw
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
Bitmixer is your best bet once you hit Full Member status (which you likely will once you make enough posts). The payouts are weekly and automated and there's no minimum post requirement so you can do 1 or 50 per week.
The other great thing about bitmixer imo is that you don't have a human who has to figure out your pay and send it. It's all automated so that it happens on-time and without any of the "o sorry i fell asleep at the wheel" bullshit that humans do.
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
how low is your don't post much?
There are 50 posts/month deals and bitmixer with no minimum post for payout
When you post less than the minimum, you usually can report the posts made to the next period and it will be add to the posts you make next period.
with some yes, but most of them don't rollover posts
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
how low is your don't post much?
There are 50 posts/month deals and bitmixer with no minimum post for payout
When you post less than the minimum, you usually can report the posts made to the next period and it will be add to the posts you make next period.
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
how low is your don't post much?
There are 50 posts/month deals and bitmixer with no minimum post for payout
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
I just joined bitmixer and is perfect if you don't post much but like hilarious said you should try get to Full Member and join that as the other deals pay pittance.
New thread for Bitstarz' February campaign.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstarzcom-february-signature-campaign-up-to-01-btc-and-more-per-month-943424
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstarzcom-february-signature-campaign-up-to-01-btc-and-more-per-month-943424
It's already closed now though.
New thread for Bitstarz' February campaign.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstarzcom-february-signature-campaign-up-to-01-btc-and-more-per-month-943424
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitstarzcom-february-signature-campaign-up-to-01-btc-and-more-per-month-943424
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
Bitmixer is your best bet once you hit Full Member status (which you likely will once you make enough posts). The payouts are weekly and automated and there's no minimum post requirement so you can do 1 or 50 per week.
Actually fuck head you can't owe Bitcoins because you don't own Bitcoins....
If I repay them or not is my choice as there's no Human Link to Bitcoins you are not a Bitcoin just as you are not your hat...
If I repay them or not is my choice as there's no Human Link to Bitcoins you are not a Bitcoin just as you are not your hat...
I can't imagine why someone wouldn't want you on their sig campaign. You're such a class act. Please remind me when did I trade with you for 21 million BTC and what exactly went wrong with that transaction?
Also make sure to correct your post here because you accidentally posted that you "owe" all these BTC, surely that can't be right: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--575743
Luckybit is open again. 
Edit: Saw that it is already updated in the OP, without anybody highlighting it in the thread. That is super efficient!
Edit: Saw that it is already updated in the OP, without anybody highlighting it in the thread. That is super efficient!
That is why the campaign manager should check the trust comment and decide. You can easily see that some of the negative ratings users have are given in retaliation or by people with extremely high negative trust.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
So? None of my negative trust even involves the people who gave the negative trust to me. How is that fair at all?
You are not allowed to give negative trust if you've never interacted or dealt with the person you are giving negative trust to...
It's a forum rule that you are not allowed to give negative trust to someone you've never traded with.
Are you saying you can scam people who are not in default trust and trusted members "are not allowed" to color you red? Makes no sense at all.
For someone who owes 40 BTC you're incredibly concerned about Jr. sig campaign dust.
Actually fuck head you can't owe Bitcoins because you don't own Bitcoins....
If I repay them or not is my choice as there's no Human Link to Bitcoins you are not a Bitcoin just as you are not your hat...
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
There are such signature campaigns - just not for Members, at the moment. It seems the least you need to post to reach the minimum mandatory post count is 80 posts a month, or 20 per week, for the campaigns: Secondstrade.com, 777Coin, and Bitin.io. I haven't been following these campaigns very closely however, and have no idea whether they are still accepting Member level users, or what conditions need be met for entry - you would need to go into their respective threads (the links for them being in the OP) to know that much.
EDIT: however, and looking better at it, considering those campaigns don't really pay a lot, you might be better served joining something like MultiDice. They require a few more posts a week, 25, but the pay rate for Members seems higher.
Is there working and paying signature campaign for ppl who dont post much?
Just a suggestion, can you please arrange the table in an order where monthly and weekly campaigns are grouped together? The table will become a lot easier to read that way.
That is why the campaign manager should check the trust comment and decide. You can easily see that some of the negative ratings users have are given in retaliation or by people with extremely high negative trust.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
So? None of my negative trust even involves the people who gave the negative trust to me. How is that fair at all?
You are not allowed to give negative trust if you've never interacted or dealt with the person you are giving negative trust to...
It's a forum rule that you are not allowed to give negative trust to someone you've never traded with.
Are you saying you can scam people who are not in default trust and trusted members "are not allowed" to color you red? Makes no sense at all.
For someone who owes 40 BTC you're incredibly concerned about Jr. sig campaign dust.
That is why the campaign manager should check the trust comment and decide. You can easily see that some of the negative ratings users have are given in retaliation or by people with extremely high negative trust.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
So? None of my negative trust even involves the people who gave the negative trust to me. How is that fair at all?
You are not allowed to give negative trust if you've never interacted or dealt with the person you are giving negative trust to...
This is not true. The fact that a small number of people are in the default trust network means that only a small number of people can have any actual impact on others' trust score, and as a result when someone scams someone (or many people) in the default trust network should give negative trust to a scammer. It's a forum rule that you are not allowed to give negative trust to someone you've never traded with.
You are just repeating yourself now. The trust system is not moderated.That is why the campaign manager should check the trust comment and decide. You can easily see that some of the negative ratings users have are given in retaliation or by people with extremely high negative trust.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
You should really only consider negative trust from people who in the default trust network when deciding if they will be allowed to participate in a signature campaign. And when declining for negative trust you should generally only do so if they have a "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" tag. (although this is ultimately up to the person paying for the advertising) ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
That is why the campaign manager should check the trust comment and decide. You can easily see that some of the negative ratings users have are given in retaliation or by people with extremely high negative trust.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
ArmoredDoge has been given negative trust by a lot of people and if he is really CrazyRabbi it's obvious he made a new account to be able to join campaigns.
...nearly everyone on the forum has some Negative Trust Rating now...
It is far from that. The majority of users have a neutral trust, and only a small portion has a positive or negative trust score.
Many people have some negative trust from someone. But it's whether or not that person is in default trust which matters (in terms sig campaigns, in my experience).
...nearly everyone on the forum has some Negative Trust Rating now...
It is far from that. The majority of users have a neutral trust, and only a small portion has a positive or negative trust score.
Jump to: