Bitcoin Forum

These days, merits in last 120 days is the basic eligibility criteria for signature campaigns. I agree with that because such people did contribution toward this community but how about appreciating the people who contribute to bitcoin itself.

I remember CM yahoo once said like "slots in campaign is not a right but a privilege". If you agree on this, then I guess long term holders deserve slots in campaigns.

I agree that people will cheat like a long term holders and manager may find hard time to track these and while accepting new participants, managers can easily check about merit history but confirming about long term holder is not an one minute work. This is the reason, I think about reservations in slots as minimum as 10%.

This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.

I am not expecting this idea will get warm welcome from this community but if this topic is able to seed any new idea then I guess that would be more than enough!

Looking for your thoughts on this....

---

Some clarifications:
I am not assuming that all holders are good posters.
Holding is not about 1 or 2 BTC holding but about what we did with previous campaign rewards and what we are going to do with current rewards.

This forum isn't controlling the Bitcoin price or earning money. To prove holding, users must sign a message from the address, otherwise, it won't be possible to verify who won the address. Signature campaign isn't a forum function, it won't be part of the rules then. Managers would implement their own way, but for me it's not reasonable. Companies need quality poster, not long time Bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin holders doesn't mean a quality poster.

Yeah right, but meriting is also not happening just for a reason of quality post (but for a contribution).

This idea doesn't make sense at all even by your logic,

Let's say 100K dollars in Bitcoin as payment for every active campaigns combined and 10% of it would be 10K and now the daily trading volume of Bitcoin is in billions, do you think this 10K a week will really make any dent in the price?

Holders is not equal to low spam cause those are two different things.

And forum doesn't dictate rules of signature campaigns, it's the managers job at the best interest of the brand they are advertising.

When theymos directs/appreciates managers for such reservation, then I guess managers will opt in.

Have you ever read the signature campaign guide?
If you don't or perhaps have forgotten, let's look at it again: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0)

I think the above hand campaign guidelines are enough to give managers insight into how to run their campaigns well.
One of the important points is in the quote below:

Signature campaigns are promotional campaigns that have nothing to do with the market and Bitcoin's price in the first place. They are run in this forum, to promote certain services and platforms and the management of those services and platforms pay money for that. Managers choose people based on their posting habits and how often their posts get merits because those who are paying money to get their services promoted want quality.

A person making useless posts all around the forum while holding 2 bitcoins in their wallet wouldn't benefit the service that they are promoting in their signature because people will barely read their posts and most of their posts will likely get reported by members and deleted by the mods. This is why, people who make quality posts are accepted in signature campaigns because they make logical and constructive posts, and such posts tend to have a higher readability percentage.

So I don't see any reason why a long-term Bitcoin holder deserves a place in a signature campaign only based on their holdings when what's important for signature campaigns is a user's performance in the forum and not in the market.

I just found out that many people were making a living here. if their income has been saved since the beginning they will not greedily be looking for another.

When I hear the word holders, I usually think of rich people. But these signature campaigners, most of them aren’t wealthy. Many actually come from poorer countries and have taken the opportunity to join a signature campaign to earn. If I were a long-term holder, I wouldn't bother joining a campaign for small amounts, but I’d still be active on the forum (if I wanted), without needing to get paid for my posts.

No.

I don't like this kind shit seniority culture where old users are chosen just because they're "older" instead of their quality.

Holding Bitcoin not give any contribution to Bitcoin because Bitcoin itself is a currency, means it should be spend to buy something or pay bills.

My idea is users who're not in campaign should stop whining and don't try to create rules to make them get personal advantages.

This forum wasn't created to manipulate the Bitcoin price. It's mission is "to be as free as possible", which is why signature campaigns are left to the users.
Companies advertising care about exposure, they don't care about your personal finances. So it wouldn't make sense to them either. And it doesn't make sense to holders: demanding details on your financial situation is a huge privacy violation.

Yeah, also for taking care of what is good for bitcoin.

A holder does not need to be the one who bought and holding bitcoin from their life time saving. We may identify a holder from their unedited posts with addys for enrolling campaigns (at least in my opinion). If you still feel like violation on privacy, I am sorry bitcoin works this way and moreover your addys are only linked to your forum-username and not to real-life identities.

I never talked about quality here. Obviously a quality poster deserves a slot when there are 2 holders compete for one slot.

I guess you must re-visit why people love bitcoin's deflationary property.

Misconception. You can be a holder when you start saving your campaign rewards and this topic is all about that.

How many is not a criteria but what you did with your last week or previous campaign may define a holder here. A spammer but a holder is obviously out of this topic.

That guidelines were from before the merit system incorporated.

It is campaign paid in bitcoin but with signature campaigns in bounties and paid in altcoins, managers usually don't require merits in last 120 days. Project teams possibly don't mind about post quality too because their tokens were minted from smart contracts, and they don't lose anything for bounty distribution.

A holder is a holder and a poster is a poster. Not all Bitcoin holders want to join signature campaigns, and very few Bitcoin holders are Bitcointalk forum members. If a person is a Bitcoin holder, it does not cause to that person is a member here, and more important is a good poster.

If you are a company, hire a Bitcoin holder into your signature campaign, pay him, but he is a shit poster, are you ready to spend your bitcoin this way?

Bitcoin doesn't care about the price ;)

It sounds like you want bonus points for having an old account, even though you don't earn much Merit compared to your Activity (which indicates your posts aren't that good). Add the accusation that you may not be the original account owner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506921.msg64497918#msg64497918) an it doesn't look good.

Since you're posting this in Meta, it looks like you want the forum to force this. Signature campaigns are a free market: whoever is paying for it, gets to choose who they hire. Theymos isn't going to tell them to hire TheGreatPython just because you joined a lot of giveaways in 2013 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506921.msg64497918#msg64497918).

I thought your idea was about forum reserves and using them for signature campaigns or how the forum will continue to grow if signature campaigns stop but at the moment there are not many of these campaigns and maybe other than the gambling section the forum has lost its influence as a place to promote new projects.

So there are not many projects and therefore choosing who to join these campaigns will be harder even for members with high merits (there are many who have +4000 merits without paid posts)

What does "directs/appreciates" mean? This is not a forum topic, so should not be in Meta, the forum does not moderate signature campaigns.

Pitch your idea directly to managers and let them decide what to do with it, or move this thread to reputation or service discussion.

- Jay -

Yeah, if bitcoin has been trading around its 2009/2010 price levels, we may not be here.

Between who pays and who joins, there is an intermediatory aka managers and this topic is all about why not managers encourage the holding of campaign rewards.

Again it is not about what you joined or that happened in 2013 but it is all about what the participants did with those rewards.

---

He brought a proof from my 2021's post against my recent local board posting. But I signed from 2016's post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506921.msg64517417#msg64517417) but he claims he was still right.

I'll just write something in relation to this part - because I don't know what you think, how much does this whole forum in terms of sig/bounty campaigns generate values ​​on a weekly/monthly basis? If we take into account that there are 20 sig campaigns on the forum that pay in BTC (for example) and that in each there are 30 members who receive an average of $100 per week (although it is less than that), then we arrive at an amount of $60k per week (20x30 = 600x100).

Roughly 1 BTC per week or 4 BTC per month for a market where several tens of billions of dollars are traded daily means that it would be meaningless, as if, for example, you want to say that one drop of water in a summer shower has some significance in relation to all the water produced by that shower.

Selling pressure does not come from us small users anyway, but from those who sell thousands or tens of thousands of BTC.

How could you even think about this idea of holding before joining a campaign like I don't understand how you are thinking about holding, does it means everyone must hold or someone has to decide how you used your paid fund?

I think the merits system is good enough to filter good and quality poster, in fact to me sometimes merits doesn't factors out how good someone could be in posting. Like I know, there are people who are good in various areas of the forum and when posting they actually contributes more to that which they knows and we may likely have good posters in some sections where merits are hardly spend such as the gambling board, politics and society and other few board that doesn't spread merits.

If people are posting that area and doesn't receive merits does it mean they aren't quality poster. I love the way most managers evaluate their applicants and participants because if judging and summarizing by merits alone they would miss quality posters l, so holding shouldn't be a criteria to accept participants or we can say that the manager can likely hold funds back to pay participants by monthly if this could be the case here, then it will be considered although some people may not buy the idea of monthly payment because the price might change either decreased or increased where the manager has to spend much in paying their participants.

If I want someone else to decide how and when I can spend my money, I'd use a bank instead of Bitcoin. It's kinda scary how you'd even suggest that as if it's a normal thing to do.

Not about how; only when.

Your coin - your decision; only if you look for more privilege then this comes to picture. I am not finding anything scary.

Bitcoin is different than thousands of cryptocurrencies because it is decentralized, no censorship, no price control. There is manipulation on the market but doing artificial price control like this proposal never existed.

Your proposal will be favorite by altcoin teams who want to create honey pots like staking pools, and attract token investors to lock tokens in these pools. It's one of their policies to reduce selling pressure on the market but token price continues to fall with time. The example means this proposal can not work well practically.

So in future, we will have a new use case for Bitcoin, reducing spam on bitcoin forum or any cryptocurrency forum that apply this proposal, that is strange. I disagree with the proposal because spam on any forum is not related to Bitcoin and it is not responsible for spam reduction or spam control/ moderation.

Why wait for someone else, I'd say: "Do it!". Create a campaign to give privilege to Bitcoin holders.

Honestly, I can't find the correlation you are trying to establish here, the campaign (which is not a right) and HODLing are not the same, or do you think the HODLing will now make it your right? I don't understand.

This is the easiest thing to do, Bitcoin transactions are visible to anybody. The manager will only ask for the HODLing address, and that solves it all. But my plight is that investments should never be forced on anyone for any reason.

I think I understand where this idea is coming from but it will not work. The money we earn here is too little compared to what Bitcoin needs ($Bs), especially if we commit only 10% to it. It will be almost nothing.

It will not! Your forum activities and your posting creativity and dedication are different from your investment. Anyone may fake it to achieve the same goal.

Over and over the primary aim of this platform in relationship with bitcoin is basically to educate enthusiasts according to their various interests in utilizing their bitcoins in both earnings and services of payments including Speculations of bitcoin. So then, here as a decentralized bitcointalk as an institution isn't a jurisdiction to regulate bitcoin or deciding on its values.
The fact that campaigns remains active here should also remain a privilege which literally the managers setup quality of and ranks of members to be qualified on the go and not recognizing the the concepts of old timers or even long time holders.

So what about the transaction which took place on May 22nd 2020 between Laszlo Hanyecz and Papa John's, buying 2 pizzas with 10,000 Bitcoins. So are you trying to tell me that that transaction wasn't a trade? Because the truth of the fact is that there were lots of people who traded Bitcoin back then, which though weren't popular, but it's record can still be found both on this forum and off the forum.
So I literally don't buy into O.P's idea of making "Amount Hold in Bitcoin" as criteria for joining a signature campaign, just as many people have earlier said.

Because imagine if everybody have held their Bitcoin for ages, do you think Bitcoin would have been this valuable? Where do you think miners would have generated profits from, if no one was trading or executing Bitcoin transaction on the Blockchain.



There are 3 primary Basic criteria to joining a Signature campaign

1. The user needs to be of a certain required rank (i.e Full, Senior, Hero or Legendary)
2. The user needs to be a good quality poster with basic knowledge about Bitcoin and crypto in general
3. The user needs to be active

Whereas, the rest are extra, such as,
4. Having a good knowledge about gambling and e.t.c

You should know the difference between a quality post and a good post. Those posts contribute something to the forum, these are supposed to be quality posts. Good posts mean they aren't spam at least and have some value. That's the reason why good posts receive less merit than quality posts. Merit is a reward for the contribution, of course, that's why managers encouraged quality posters to apply, merit is the one element to identify quality posters, but not Bitcoin holding. 

This doesn't make sense. Nobody "deserves" a spot for the very reason you just mentioned: its a right, not a privilege. You should think of it from a campaign client's point of view: intriguing, good, informative posts sometimes lend to somebody's decision to click on a signature. "Bitcoin holdings" do not. They can't be identified in every post, nor should they. Its the post itself that matters.

To me, as a Merit source, "good" is more than enough to send Merit. The Merit system was meant to reduce spam, and if a user isn't spamming, he shouldn't be limited by the Merit system.

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

I don't understand why you keep forcing your own opinion when other users already pointed out if your points aren't make sense at all.

Holding/spending is a personal choice and it doesn't have any relation with the quality of your account in this forum.
Selling all coins received by signature campaigns at once will not give any impact to Bitcoin price.

As I don't see any campaign managers replied in this thread (they might likely not interested), you're better start your own signature campaign and add/remove any rules you want.

Good luck convincing a company that someone's bank account is a reason to hire them.

I don't think you read my reply because I explained why not. There's a couple of great reasons not to do it this way:

1) It doesn't necessarily add anything to the value of a post.
2) Its an inconvenient, obtrusive, and plain weird thing to prove with every post.

Forcing? I am sorry if I sound that way... I have been trying to explain my points, nothing else.

This is one of the most insane suggestions I've ever read >:(. OP, don't you think that looking into other people's wallets is hideous? Moreover, what about privacy and keeping secrets about the availability of funds, or even the amount of funds that users have?
If you think manipulation on the forum is possible, then I would like to remind you that anything that contradicts freedom of choice causes a backlash in people.
I will say one thing: if you or someone else is not able to prove yourself and attract the attention of the manager so that the "privilege" can be granted to you, then this is only your shortcomings, and other people should not participate in this.

This is not going to work because it's only a few members here that have not spend a dime from their signature payment and even if campaign managers decides to select signature participants based on the number best holder, it's quite possible that anyone here can just start to hold some specific amounts of Bitcoin in their wallet, just to be selected for campaign. This your idea is not going to work.

Most casino signature campaigns focus more on members with knowledge about gambling. How do you expect a campaign manager to reserve slots for holders who don't have any gambling experience or knowledge? Holding for a long time doesn't also mean that the user has enough knowledge about Bitcoin or the forum. Campaign managers have other criteria for selecting participants and not just merits. And I think they should be allowed to do their job based on the service they are promoting and their discretion. I don't also think it will be difficult for holders with Bitcoin knowledge to be selected by managers in campaigns.

This has to be on the Mount Rushmore of dumbest things I’ve ever read on Bitcointalk. First, I’m not very keen on signature campaign spreadsheets being public because people like OP are interested in how much others are hodling in their wallets. Secondly, it’s not in anyway in the benefit of the company running the signature campaign to hire members based off their bitcoin holdings. Maybe when you become a campaign manager and have your own campaign, you can effect these changes.

Yeah. This entirely. It's why I use Bitcoin almost all of the time and my bank account very rarely.


Does not make it to Mount Rushmore at all. That place is filled with the avatars (or lack thereof) of the forum trolls of old times. Some of which you can even see by going back 30-50 pages on Meta.