Bitcoin Forum

http://i64.tinypic.com/ip47xl.jpg

If so, I think it would be better to change it. I suppose this is not a big deal, because someone sending merit to himself would run out of merits soon and would also be negatively trusted. But I think it would be better if this wasn’t allowed.

It does not. Once you try the request it ends up showing...


The way some of the merit abusers are abusing merit, if it was possible, by now you would end up saying a->a thousands of times if not millions  :)

Ok, I haven't tried because I was thinking I could be negatively trusted or something.

This was tested from first minutes, it is a human stuff to reward yourself first before everyone else ;)
Please lock the topic since you already received the answer from mdayonliner.

Before you open this thread you should have it to see whether it will work or have an evidence of who must have done such before, but I can see that someone has already provided a very good answer to your question and am sure that will be okay with you. 

It's good that limit was put into place. If one person had say 100 sMerit, they could merit themselves around 197 merits before they ran out of those merit as each merit is worth a half of the previous merit.

Does Yahoo even screen people before allowing them to advertise his signature, literally have no idea what that bit means (I've seen quite a few users with that signature that post stuff that just doesn't seem to make sense to me).

Thanks OP, Actually I have that same question in my mind.
@mdayonliner , you are brave to test it , I never thought in my dreams to test this. If in case this is bug (you can give merit to yourself)  the next thing I imagine a loads of red trust.

The power of merit farming LOL

---------	---------
100	=> 100
50	=> 150
25	=> 175
12 (0.5)	=> 187
6 (0.5)	=> 193
3 (0.5)	=> 196
2	=> 198
1	=> 199
(0.5)	=> 199
---------	---------

Hey! you got it wrong but close enough  ;D

Half of 25 is 12.5 where you chose to round down. Later on you take half of three which is 1.5. At this point you chose to round up.

If you are rounding up all the time you get 202. If you round down all the time you get 197. I think it rounds down but I'm not too sure. I think OP is right about 197.

If I remember exactly, Theymos stated about this issue in the ANN topic of merit ystem, which has title "Merit system and new rank requirements".
Sorry, I have checked the topic, which has not mentioned about this. But I believe that I read it somewhere.
By the way, Theymos should add the basic information about the operational mechanism  of merit system to the OP of the topic for newcomers.

Like godson said. How is half of 3.5 ever going to be 2.
And 12.5/2=6.5 huh?
It's definitely 197.

Calculation of 199 is definitely correct and I edited it to show you how it is correct.
Actually it is Geometric Progression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression) with first term as 100 and common ratio as 1/2
and we are calculating the sum till 8^th term

100  50 25 12.5  6.25  3.125  1.562   .78 (.78 is the 8^th term and less than 1, so not good for calculation going ahead.)

But here the actual calculation took  place like, not following the exact GP series.

100 + 50 + 25+ floor[25/2] + floor[13/2] + floor[7/2] + floor[4/2] + floor[2/2]
100  +50 +25+ 12                +6               + 3             + 2              + 1             = 199

Locking this thread because latest discussion has nothing to do with what I asked and my question has already been answered.