Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem. |
|
|
|
The throne is never empty
Now that the Bitmixer signature campaign is handled appropriately (I hope Lauda doesn't heavily abuse her current position as the campaign's manager, lol),
Well, I'll try not to be *too strict*.  The campaign is finally somewhat settling with 50-60 users that are at least decent (IMO). Hail the new guardians of spam, the Byteball Signature Campaign, the most recent sanctuary and retreat for shit posters. As an aside, it looks like a lot of kicked-out Bitmixer members voted in the thread recently, despite the obvious fact that the proper management of signature campaigns has greatly helped to reduce the amount of spam on the forum I have just sent them a PM. If they do not take action/respond, then the community should take action for them. Our measures are only effective if most of the managers are willing to participate. |
|
|
|
I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.
No, thank you. Polls can be *anonymous* manipulated. If necessary, I could summarize supportive comments as in "Number of supporters vs. opposers". Yes, please. How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?
I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status. Please do not try to move this thread into that direction. From what I can tell, 'temporarily banned' is not going to happen. So let's focus on what I clearly express in the OP. I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know?
The primary idea behind this is to help the community, especially those who are actively trying to fight spammers and account farmers. I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam.
That is not the point of this idea, and thus should probably be discussed separately (as it has a broader effect and would require more discussion). |
|
|
|
I got a better Tittle for you:
"Ninja Cat Hunting Street Dogs"
I suggest that you stop trolling/trying to be funny. This thread is not self moderated and can easily get derailed. You have issues that you need to take care of in your own campaign anyway. |
|
|
|
|
What makes you think that you could possibly correctly do this job, and hold to a higher standard (e.g. that of SFR10)? This forum does not really require more managers (quantity wise), but rather only more of those that are doing *quality work*.
|
|
|
|
Location, age and citizenship?  I hope that you realize the following (obvious) issues at hand: 1) Being born in a country such as the US does not imply good mastery of the English language. 2) Anyone could easily just give you fake information about themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Trust is not moderated unless there are extreme cases of abuse. This means that the forum allows pretty much any kind of trust dealings (including purchase, farming of trust and such). However, this does not mean that the community will condone such behavior.
I see this as a case of "Trust begging" which I do not necessarily agree with.
|
|
|
|
...
What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere. A clear example of argumentum ad lapidem. You have no valid points to defend an invalid stance, hence the dismissal. I'm done. Someone else is free to address this.
Update: Now we have false dillema and poisoning the well. |
|
|
|
Well, it is semi-official now. Trump has won Wisconsin which makes him over the required 270 required Electoral votes, making him the next president. How exactly this is going to affect the Bitcoin price is yet to be seen (note that it takes time to move their money onto exchanges and whatnot). I think it will make bitcoin's price going up but doesn't mean Donald Trump help bitcoin, he is just political and in my opinion it is not related with bitcoin and as we know the bitcoins is can not be controled by government.
You don't know what you're talking about, please do not respond with half-baked posts. Nobody ever stated that Trump has plans to *help Bitcoin* nor attempt to control it. |
|
|
|
This seems like a mixture of political & speculative talk, so this section is quite inappropriate for it.
I'm actually surprised that people are *disappointed* about a corrupted criminal that was advocating going to war with both Syria and Russia (No Fly Zone in Syria plan) lost. Let me say this clearly before some people overreact to this statement, both candidates are terrible: Why is Hillary bad?Why is Trump bad?If you've been listening in to live news coverage, stocks seem to be down in addition to both Gold & Bitcoin going up (yes, news channels are indirectly *promoting* Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
Here's the latest weekly update: Banning Round 4: This is the list of users that have been banned for the following reason - "Low quality/insubstantial/repetitive posts - SPAM": Naoko
Hatuferu
oblivi
brian_23452
Jemzx00
Jambolb2
virusasog
White sugar
rinhunter
neurotypical
maokoto
AtheistAKASaneBrain
marioantonini
Doms
This is the list of users that have been banned for the following reason - "Posting only (or primarily) in local sections AND/OR spam": ----------
MISHA165
-aleco-
My lists have been updated and differently formatted now, which can be shown in the Bitmixer thread. |
|
|
|
I didn't respond to this thread in a long time, although I read it quite frequently. I've been hearing 'Gold & Bitcoin up' on a few (live) news coverage in response to the situation in America. Has the time come? I have to re-post my favorite gif. in response to the rising price.  |
|
|
|
|
Looks good. I was probably going to do most of my shopping on websites that still do not accept Bitcoin, but I was looking into places that will accept Bitcoin directly as well. Hopefully less people are going to be negatively affected than last night (remember the scam website being promoted?). Anyhow, are any deals going to be shown *earlier* without signing up via email?
Considering the situation in America, the price may keep rising before Black Friday which would encourage more shopping (if it starts cooling down around that time).
|
|
|
|
Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?
I can't find it at this time as I've also seen it quoted by someone else not long ago. There is some discussion here. The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?
Most likely for all banned accounts (including temporary and permanent), yes. Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here. However, if there is sufficient demand, backed up by decent reasoning, I'm almost positive that it could be a thing of the *near* future. |
|
|
|
It's not off-topic. Since 0.13.1 includes foul code for the first time it is just the right place to discuss it.
False. Segwit is the most peer-reviewed and tested change to date. There is nothing foul about it. If you want to discuss foul things, then you may want to take a look at the *ex-convicts* supporting BU. Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster, thus stealing the block reward).
There's nothing preventing a malicious miner from doing this. There is no way to DOS the network because individual nodes can choose to reject blocks based on their individual preferences. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size limit.
There's nothing prevent someone from creating a super-majority of nodes and manipulating this metric as well. You could easily end up with a minority of nodes not accepting such blocks. It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.
Appeal to authority fallacy. For that reason they should not act like ones. This is called theft of intellectual property.
This is just wrong on so many levels. |
|
|
|
You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why? Because some random alias had supreme knowledge of everything ? Appeal to authority. There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy.
"Network speed will cap"? What kind of ludicrous made up thing is this? With no hard limit, any malicious entity should be able to DOS the network. I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.
What numbers? The minority of nodes and hashrate on BU?
Note: This is all off-topic to this thread. We should stop derailing it. Create a separate thread. |
|
|
|
|
I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?
|
|
|
|
1. I'm taking my chances, it is very important for Bitcoin to reject SegWit. If it fails we lose BTC, and it will become yet another Ethereum centralized bankstercoin
Nonsense FUD by someone who's either very misinformed or just trolling. 2. Yes I am a bitcoin holder since 2011 and I belive the price will rise more without SegWit.
Doesn't matter even if you were satoshi, this does not give you more credibility. 3. Unlimited blocks is the most decentralized and best free market based attempt for scaling. I support Satoshi's original vision. If you disagree with Satoshi go ahead and create SegWItCoin as an altcoin to Bitcoin.
No. Unlimited blocks are inherently safe. Also stop appealing to authority. Just because Satoshi created it, or had a vision, that does not mean that that is the utmost correct and perfect way to move to. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
