Coat the gold with zinc or iron, and label it "Tungsten".
Tungsten has about the same density as gold, but costs about USD23/kg.
Scammers have sometimes tried to fill gold bars with tungsten since the adulterated bar would pass a water displacement test.
Right... Then when they ask you about the metals, you just say you're bringing the tungsten as a gift for a friend's kids. Kids love tungsten, dont you know!? |
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing the application will have ads, which will provide revenue for the developer.
How long do you think advertisers are going to put up with this kind of thing? It seems pretty obvious that people willing to use this kind of app aren't exactly a premium demographic segment.
|
|
|
|
|
The weekend is long past us. Prediction failed, thread over, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Price discovery? Historically, stablility has been the least common pattern for BTC prices. So it either goes up or it goes down, and tends to do so rather violently.
IOW, price failed to break down for several days, prolonged sideways movement is not common, so a spike up isn't that surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
Judging by the lack of enthusiasm, there's no point in going full steam ahead with this.
The ads themselves don't bother me that much, although I'd feel lousy about having one myself. It's just that paying people to post without extremely strict quality control seems like a proposition with no upsides and plenty of downsides.
The biggest problem is that a lot of posts aren't really abusive or off-topic, just completely uninteresting. I don't think we'd see anywhere near as much of the "I hoep Bitcoin price gose up, I'll b very hapi and it good for Bitcoin!" type of post if people weren't paid for volume. I report the stuff, but it seems my standards are stricter than the mods'. I'll admit moderating for insightfulness is a tough proposition, but I think that just means you shouldn't encourage mediocre posts, because you're going to see enough of them even without financial incentives.
So I'll probably start using self-moderation in the rare case I do start a thread myself, but will moderate for post quality, not ad content. Trying to self-moderate ads away would only have a chance of having any effect if a lot of people did it. Just me going around being a stickler for manners on my own would result in collateral damage without any benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't an encrypted file container for your data, backed up online, do the job?
|
|
|
|
|
There's no reason for a campaign runner to want to restrict their campaigners' posting any further than absolutely necessary to comply with forum moderation policy. If you want to change the rules for campaigns, you have to get the policies changed, and that doesn't look likely.
The only other option seems to be to find ways to make life harder for ad spammers. I'm suggesting one such way here.
|
|
|
|
paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.
Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially. I'm just pointing out that for any users unhappy with moderation policy, as many seem to be in the case of the sig campaigns, the forum software does offer tools to use. |
|
|
|
|
Shorena: I don't think it's possible for a user to restore posts they delete from a self-mod thread. As for deleting old posts, I expect that would depend on the user doing the moderating. Probably they'd be left in place most of the time. Too much work to keep track of every post, plus the point is to remove the incentive to post crap, not to remove ads per se. Providing a clean environment for discussion as it's happening should be enough.
|
|
|
|
This a pretty stupid idea. A lot of people on this forum use a signature. This idea would be only for a small percentage of the people on this forum.
A pretty small precentage of the people on this forum actually contribute anything meaningful. And yes, I took a cursory look at your post history, you sig campaigner, you. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, the extrapolate-ad-absurdum result might be a "moderation market", where people only post in threads started by people they trust to fairly moderate discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an idea:
How about those of us who don't appreciate what sig campaigns are doing to this forum decide to only start self-moderated threads, deleting any posts with sig campaign ads in them?
To get the idea to spread, we can use a sig of our own, come up with a slogan for it.
"END ADVERTISING SPAM - ONLY START SELF-MODERATED THREADS AND DELETE SIG CAMPAIGNER'S POSTS FROM THEM!"
Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue that way, but I'm sure we can work on that. How does it sound?
PS. I'd make this thread self-moderated but that's not possible on the meta subforum...
|
|
|
|
And if I paid street drunks to spend their time in front of the grocery store down the street, the storeowner should be happy about the increased traffic, right?
You forgot to add a (not so) teeny-tiny factor there, ad revenues. True. Doesn't do much for me as a "customer", though. |
|
|
|
to be fair the whole signature campaign probably brings in a whole lot of traffic and keeps the traffic coming back.
And if I paid street drunks to spend their time in front of the grocery store down the street, the storeowner should be happy about the increased traffic, right? My sig sums up what I think about this. |
|
|
|
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.
Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image. Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin. The block reward is for finding a block, you don't have to include any tx in a block you find to get the reward.So I only see two obvious resons for miners acceptin 0-fee tx : - they believe it's in their own interest somehow, good for Bitcoin in the long run etc. - the transactions don't add sufficient overhead for them to bother configuring their miners to discard them. What I'm getting at here is: The service providers freely choose what they wish to charge for the service of including transactions in blocks. Block subsidy obviously plays a big part in that, but the issuance schedule is deterministic and well understood by all. How is this not a fee market? |
|
|
|
|
Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.
|
|
|
|
Historically, bitcoin's price goes down during Christmas celebratory season or after. The holiday is followed by new year's eve and Chinese new year on Feb 8 and celebrations. Play it safe, sell some of your coins now only to re-buy as the price goes down.
December 9th. |
|
|
|
|
I know how to get a BTCUSD chart. I'm looking for one where the BTCUSD price is normalized for the total amount of BTC issued, relative to a given date. Essentially an inflation-corrected chart for BTCUSD, just corrected for BTC inflation instead of the more common USD
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have a current chart of tthe BTCUSD price, adjusted for BTC inflation relative to some date in, say, 2011 or so? Or maybe with the current date as the supply reference?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
