I highly doubt that Bitmixer is interested in such a deal, so no. Also the ACE team is not mine ("your"), I'm a participant of it as much as anyone else is (consensus based decisions).

I said this already, and I'll say it again: Talk to Bitmixer, not me.

---

One more time: PSA: Do not join this campaign, if you intent to have >95% of your posts in your local sections. This is against the rules.

I highly discourage hiring new and inexperienced people as managers. In addition to that, I highly discourage hiring established and experienced managers who do not condemn spam.

+1.

I can be the last option as a substitute or help to SFR, but that is not likely going to be necessary.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665545.0

Where's the double standard in that? This is exactly what you're going to encounter pretty much everywhere outside of the countries in which English is the primary language: Non native English speakers judging your ability to speak English (school, certification, etc.). This solely depends on the skill level of the person doing the *judging* (or evaluation).

Neither am I, that's why I'm eager to hear the developers address what you have to say.

No, that does not seem the case. Rhaver is concerned that cheating is possible by several entities. When someone has concerns regarding the project, one naturally expects the developers to address these when possible.

So exactly what is this supposed to do? Centralize Bitcoin in order to avoid downloading a part of the blockchain? That's a terrible idea. If you don't have enough storage space right now, you can run a pruned node.

False.

For me, there are two types of spammers:
1) Those that spam with low quality posts in English (either repetitive content, posting in burst and such)
2) Abusing/breaking the rules since the counting and payment is automatic.
For Bitmixer campaign both go on the blacklist. Different campaigns would be treated differently obviously.

I'm pretty sure that this is not the case with SMAS (you could argue that it is for Bitmixer since counting is automatic). If these *other* managers were participating in a group project like this, that would severely cut down spam.

I'm working on it. Some people quoting it here and there aren't really helping. I'll try to keep it consistently clean.

---

FYI: It is likely the same spammer that always kept attacking that section. However, they were unusually quiet lately.

They are also banned from what I can see right now. Note that their signature is removed.

Calm down. This has nothing to do with what you're writing about, not has it anything to do with what the user wanted. I gave them the current internet speed required to download the maximum size of a block (currently) and some arbitrary guess at which people would likely not bother at all. He asked for *size* at which users would not want to download at current speeds, not what was consensually safe or not (which I clearly stated that we are disregarding). One more time: the 100GB per month is completely arbitrary.

Everything else is doomsday, propaganda, mumbo jumbo not relevant to this thread.

I think that hilariousandco is talking about the report from Killimanjaro, which contains two users, both of which are currently banned from what I can tell.

0.01 BTC

Well, currently we are talking about a ridiculously low speed: 1 MB /10 /60 = 1.666 kb/s. We can't really estimate where the problem will start popping up for most users. The blockchain is already heavy as is, and the bigger it gets, the less people will want to use a full wallet or run a full node. Current average (global) internet speeds are almost able to download 1 GB blocks under 10 minutes (which requires less than 2 MB/s). However, this is way beyond the realm of possibility at this time, because if they were only half full on average we'd have over 2 TB worth of blocks each month (500 x 6 x 24 x 30 = 2 160 000).

---

I think a good portion would probably give up if we were talking about 100 GB monthly (probably even less) in blockchain growth.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because of a singular post, however I did read their answer earlier today and it did strike me as bit odd. They have no addressed a single thing laid out by you.

Maybe you could post some references regarding how those services are exactly involved for those looking at this from the outside. I don't see either one of those cheating (maybe oraclize), but claiming *fully decentralized* would be wrong in that case.

This topic has been moved to Archival.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1669564.0

You gain activity points by posting in a 14 day period. If you make less than 14 posts, then you would have some leftover activity as potential activity. In the case of this account, the activity would rise by 1 point for every post made up to 300+ (until you use it all up).

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial thread. Please use the search engine before posting redundant content.

Unfortunately, due to the circumstances that you're also aware of, quite a few number of sets will require these chips.

You are assembling multiple sets? Have I included these in the trading manifest? If not, please notify me of changes.

Thanks. That reminds me that I should probably add a picture of those S1 coins.

Indeed. I would prefer if that was removed in the next update.

I think you need a pair of glasses mister Pepe.

I think that it the point. The graph was supposed to represent the potential growth that the blockchain size might see in the future (as it clearly says "potential").

I'm not sure why a VPS would not be able to do what you want it to do. The only remaining options are dedicated servers, and those are not cheap.

He does not have a computer from what I can tell.

No. Read the thread and stop spamming.