Adding on to the discussion of ports, how about making interest rise on a time-based scale? For example, for the first 24 hours, the depositor would be able to accrue the default 0.01% interest. Then, as time goes on, the interest rate would gradually increase as long as no further deposits or withdrawals are made. It would make ports actually worth the large amounts of drones required to defend them. Right now, there's no point in depositing large amounts of credits into them, considering the steep rate of power creep we're currently experiencing. Essentially, we need a better reason to defend ports. (We also need a better way of defending ports, but that's already been said.)

That's incorrect. Stake rewards are now fixed at 5 coins per block. It's written on the OP of this thread. What are you looking at an old and outdated thread for?

And why is that other guy asking about things that can be found on the first post? Are we supposed to repeat the same things on every page for you?

Sorry, I should have sent you a PM regarding the edit to my post. I added my Hyper address into the post on the claim thread on your forum a few days ago. Unfortunately, I can't post the address here due to posting regulations. I will send you a PM here though just in case you are unable to locate the address on the post.

On another note, regarding whatever planned game you have for the future, might I suggest allowing withdrawals only after a player reaches a specified level? Account upgrades would then include a lowering of the required level for withdrawal as part of their benefits. Well, it's just a suggestion for the future anyway.

- Rimuru

I feel bad for those who registered during the last few weeks. There were a lot of them, and some of them also upgraded just recently.

On the bright side, this might be a good opportunity to remove the Truce item from the game. From what I've observed (loosely speaking), only one person in the entire game uses it regularly, and that person is ironically in the running for DKV2's public enemy number one.

Anyway, hopefully, we can be back and running soon. I won't be of any help as far as browser cache is concerned, as I regularly clear my cookies on the browser where I play the game.

- Rimuru

Will the coin retain its name and ticker? I reckon this might be confusing for a little while after the transition.




If you haven't been staking the coin regularly for over a year, then a max coin weight restriction shouldn't matter much to you since it's very likely that you wouldn't be staking in the future either anyway.

Signature campaigns are not a feature of this discussion board. They are independently managed advertising campaigns. To learn about a signature campaign, all you need to do is to read the instructions on how to participate on a particular campaign on the thread where it is running. There are no tips or tricks to joining or earning more from them. If you are posting the way that you are expected to post on the board, then a signature campaign is just bonus monetization of your post. New and running signature campaigns can be found on the Services subforum of the board.

Could someone please point me to a direct download of the blockchain? I know that there's a user who keeps archived copies of the blockchain on his/her website, but I don't remember his/her forum handle. I got a forked copy of the blockchain a while ago, and synching the blockchain from the start seems to be a more tedious process now than it used to be when I first started using XDN.

Yes, I am aware of that. But so does any negative review on any business. We can go back and forth on that, or we can agree that it shouldn't, but it is what it is.





Hmm...
1) a rating based on unreasonable prejudice such as racism, sexism, homophobia, different political and socio-cultural views, etc.
2) outright lies, oftentimes slanderous
3) blatant attempts to drive away customers from a competing service
4) a revenge rating which holds no merit
5) spam

There's more I'm sure, but I can't be expected to know all of them offhand, especially if I've yet to encounter them.

In the case described on the OP, I can't say that it's abusive, since the same rating is applied to other members when the aforementioned rater encounters other members in the same circumstances. Whether you agree or not that participants of account trading are deserving of a negative rating, you can surely see that the rationale behind the neg is reasonable, and therefore justifiable from the perspective of the rater. As long as the rating is based on something reasonable and justifiable, then that can't be called abusive, now can it?





Some people would consider it a legitimate enough reason, yes. However, let's face it. Most people who buy accounts don't just earn from participating in a signature campaign on one account. The rest either start scamming or spamming with a single bought account, or they are one of those rarities who get by with earning without being noticed (let's call them "innocent" for argument's sake). Now, some people would prefer to give the account traders the benefit of the doubt, if just to save one "innocent". Others would prefer to err on the side of caution. Both sides have their own perspectives, and both sides have merits. And since both sides have merits, then it also holds true that they can give out whatever rating they want to give based on any actionable evidence. That's the point of the Trust rating, after all.





This is hilarious. You need to do stand-up, guy.





The whole point of the Trust Rating is to voice out one's opinion and/or personal experience with another member, and relay a visible marker based on that opinion and/or experience. The negged member's opinion is still respected even if they get negged. They just get marked down as not being trusted by a particular member. Would you prefer for the neg-rater to create a thread titled "I DON'T TRUST THIS MEMBER ***" and link everyone to that thread instead?

Account buyers and sellers are not trusted by a lot of people, and some of those people prefer to err on the side of caution and mark all of them negatively altogether. Their opinions have merit and are reasonable. If you really feel differently, then go ahead and mark all of them green instead -- let's see where that takes you. One scam from anyone you've marked green and you'll prolly be ignored even by your friends for supporting a scam.





^ THIS.

Trust has nothing to do with what's allowed by the forum rules. Trust is strictly about trust. If one user thinks that a user participating in account trading is not trustworthy, then it is the former's prerogative to exercise his/her privilege of handing a Trust Rating reflecting his/her thoughts to the latter's account. Essentially, if another user deems you or your account suspicious, then he/she has a right to voice it out. In the end, that's all it is -- a user's voice. If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business. As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused, then no one has any say over having a rating removed other than the one who gave the rating (and Theymos, but that's not the point). As far as I can see, there is nothing unreasonable about negging someone for participating in account trading, as I am also of the opinion that there is no legitimate reason to buy accounts on a public discussion board. (And no, trying to earn BTC from posting is not a legitimate reason.)

That's because of a shortage of merchant support though, and has nothing to do with the core development of the coin. I can't claim to know how much effort the development team has put into inspiring merchants to accept XDN as a method of payment, but I feel it would be safe enough to assume that it is and has been significant. However, there comes a point when the community itself has to look at the coin -- any coin, for that matter -- as a fluid currency rather than just something to sell or hold until it's priced well enough to sell. If people are willing to spend a coin, then merchants will be willing to accept it. It's a catch-22 for most coins, and this coin is no exception. The question is, are you willing to spend your coins and/or accept it as payment? The value of the coin will rise or fall organically based on that.

Wrong. Please do your due diligence before spreading any false information (like you are doing now).

None of the links on his advertising wall belong to paying advertisers. The 4 links currently occupying the advertising wall on his website are all referral links. You can easily verify that by checking the URL that those links lead to -- every single link ends with a referral pointer to an account with the username 1000bitcoins. Those banners/links are only there to provide the illusion of actual paying advertisers when none exist in reality.

It is very unlikely that advertisers doing their due diligence would be swayed by those fake "advertisements". It is also very unlikely that anyone would pay 1 BTC to advertise on a site with no consistent organic traffic. But that's not the point. You are doing a disservice to everyone by spreading false and misleading information for a few satoshis worth of sig spam.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of inflation. If the supply of coins increases at a much faster rate than the demand for it, then the value of the coin will eventually decrease to somehow balance it. That's why a lot of high-quantity coins have a hard time organically increasing in value when there is no merchant support backing them either. The point of decentralized mining was always to give everyone an equal amount of opportunity to get coins while safeguarding the blockchain from malicious parties.

The generation rate of coins is not going to be increased just because a single miner can no longer monopolize the coins for himself. In fact, that you had been monopolizing it to a large extent for so long is a good reason to support the further increase of the hashrate.

That's stupid. Why would anyone pay you 1 BTC for the possibility that a news website or media account that has nothing better to report on would offhandedly mention their advertised service as an aside? Any legitimate service can just pay a fraction of that amount to get real advertising or even actual conversions. In fact, they can get the same "advertising" that you're offering for free by contacting the same websites that you would be spamming for attention.

Advertisers are paying for traffic. If your page has nothing interest and unique on it, then the only traffic it will be getting is from stray visitors who will most likely spend less than 2 seconds on it. The first of anything new always gets a lot of attention. Since what you're proposing is nothing new, then it's just a random page with links. I can go to a lot of those already, and advertisers don't even have to spend 1 BTC to advertise on those random pages.

While I think that creating a new coin and swapping our current coins for it would be optimal, I opted to vote for fixing the current wallet instead. Creating a new coin might seem easy because scammers and delusional wannabes release at least 5 new ones every other day, but a true successful coin requires more than just a shiny new logo. The current Hyper already has an acceptable branding and an adequate following, both of which can still be salvaged if we can get a functional wallet that consumes less resources than a triple-A MMO. If you think about it, we would still need a new wallet even if we created a replacement coin for Hyper. We might as well just fix the wallet first, then come back to the idea of making a new coin if the majority is still not satisfied after that. In the end, rather than fiddling around with coin specs, more widespread merchant support would be more beneficial. I highly doubt that any merchant likes waiting half an hour for a wallet to load.

True, but it's everyone's responsibility to vet deals on their own, and learn the various functions of the forum. Even if a member is new to this forum, a responsible member would at least check the post history and previous dealings of a person who he/she wants to engage any type of business with. We (well, the more patient members mostly) already coddle newbies beyond the point of just giving them fish. This is a discussion board where conversations oftentimes deal with real financial implications -- learning how to make use of the Trust system on their own should at least be something that a newbie is capable of. Otherwise, regardless of whichever forum that member joins, he/she would prolly be trading a car for a smelly old sock without a pair anyway. Sometimes, there comes a point when you should stop being a parent and just admit that a child is a lost cause, and let him/her fend for himself/herself.




That happens a lot of times even now. If you see abuse, then report it to the staff. If it's deemed by them as abuse, then it will be dealt with. Abuse will always be an issue in everything.




I would actually prefer a system where the staff would manually disable the self-moderation of a thread on a case-by-case basis. I've never had to use self-moderated threads, but I can understand why some newbies would legitimately need them. And who's to say that higher ranks are more trustworthy anyway?




Like I said above, I'm more for a case-by-case disabling rather than a blanket system.

Odd. After I opened the game in IE (to test it as Ender described), I got a 404 error and couldn't access the site anymore from any browser. Is that also due to an IP ban?

Character Name: Rimuru

I would agree to this, but if and only if there is a penalty imposed on members who perform actions contrary to the purpose of the links. For example, we have all these noobs (yes, not newbies, but noobs) who keep starting new threads asking for an explanation on Activity or how to increase their forum ranks when the thread explaining it is pinned on the subforum that they are posting on. They clearly aren't penalized (or at the very least, ostracized) for doing so. Even if a new policy was implemented which directed newbies to important threads and postings, if they are allowed to simply ignore those with no repercussions, then it wouldn't really do any good. In that case, I'd rather not have it since it would just consume the board's resources without achieving anything.




This is a clear example of the aforementioned noobs.

I'm inclined to believe that this is just some bored dbag using a new account to troll.

Here you go.

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/bitstars-net-signature-campaign-up-to-0-1-btc-and-more-per-month.376672/page-2#post-8592882

That's the Bitcointa.lk archive of your original post.

None of that matters. If it did, then the Trust system would have been designed to reset itself after a certain amount of time had passed. User feedback and colored trust exist to inform users of any relevant information concerning another user. Your proposed "service" was shady, and you were branded (accused? -- same difference online) a scammer due to it. That is crucial information that might be of significant importance to any user who would interact with you in the future. However, keep in mind that "Trust" is just a color and a number. If you're legit and the other party believes you to be legit, then just go on with your business as usual.

Also, sarcasm on the Internet is a myth, and you tried to sell a fake Rolex.




The neg came from hilariousandco. I highly doubt that OP is getting that removed anytime soon. XD

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're talking about a plug-in for your own service, right? So your plug-in will allow the customer to pay you in USD to act as a middleman between him/her and the merchant? Is that correct?




Your post is irrelevant, as you can say the same thing about any software. You're pretty much suggesting that everyone should just go back to living in the Stone Age since progress is doomed to fail. Sig spam perhaps?