If this is the case then I would suggest that you educate theymos on this so he stops telling people that the forum does not need money.
You don't seem to understand either statements. Theymos is right when he says that the forum does not need more money, as in, it has enough money to remain fully functional. My statement was more general, e.g. you could donate the money to charity (which is a bad example, but applies). Again, I think that the price is too high and would result in excluding the majority of people who are not already wealthy.
Again, the point is not to generate money but to remove the majority of signature campaign participants (which are spammers anyways). Maybe "no one" is not entirely true, however anyone who is acting economically rational will not pay a fee that is designed to prevent anyone who pays said fee from ever earning a return on said fee.
Again, a hasty and hyperbolic generalization. It comes down to the member; I could probably (if I wanted to) return that sum within 2 to 3 months. If they have 10 accounts then they are risking $200 (plus the value of their accounts). Also note that many (possibly even most) of the signature spammers live in parts of the world where $1 is a lot of money.
If you have 10 accounts, you're risking 20 BTC. This seems much better in my eyes. -snip- so if you see one then I would suggest that you report to so a moderator with authority over that section can lock it.
Telling a moderator what to do when he sees such a thread?  The issue there would be the optics that mods are censoring members.
Bullshit. There is a huge difference between censorship and moderation. Free-speech does not mean that you can come and spread any kind of nonsense in a privately owned place. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
I've sent you a PM. I'll work on this for you most likely.
Let's see. |
|
|
|
Anyone could mark posts as spam?
Prone to abuse. or could have only certain ranks allowed? a post needing 5 votes or whatever before its marked as true spam etc.
Still prone to abuse.
To combat abuse, dont allow anyones OPs to be marked as spam incase people hurt other competiting businesses OP. Leave OP deleting to the mods. Spammers dont usually make an OP anyway they like to hide deep in threads.
They can still suppress someone's input in other threads. Mods could also have powers to see who is marking what posts as spam incase businesses start to attack eachother.
End result is that there's a lot more work for moderators for a small benefit (if any). |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Useless introduction thread.
|
|
|
|
Are there any modifications to the current simple machines forum software which allow members to mark posts as spam (blocking the post from general view etc). That would put sig campaign managers mostly out of business haha. The community will then police the issue, account farming becomes pointless.
Exactly who would be allowed to mark posts as spam? How would you plan on abuse? A few people could 'gang up' on someone with the opposite view and suppress his posts. |
|
|
|
I think 2 BTC would be more appropriate if the forum was in some kind of need for additional money and it was for something other then to enable signature features.
There are plenty of ways that the money could be spent. I might speculate that the volume of accounts traded might go up as people might be interested in buying accounts at fire-sale prices, hoping that signature campaigns would make a return appearance, giving value to accounts once again.
So, the right approach is not to completely ban them, but go in the lines of OgNasty's suggestion. I also have observed many signature spammers decline to "invest" the small amount of time required to even briefly read a small number of posts in a thread prior to posting nonsense.
That is one of the main problems in their posting habits. They don't read posts, end up rewriting what someone else already wrote and they keep repeating this cycle. Their overall posting quality becomes trash. Why is that foolish? If you charge an amount that is greater then someone can reasonably expect to earn via their signature over a medium amount of time then no one will pay the "fee" and you are essentially banning signature campaigns.
That is a hasty generalization. You can't know this, as an example I choose myself, assuming that staff members also lose this functionality, I would pay the 2 BTC fee. If you pay 0.05 btc every month on the 1st, then you will be risking that 0.05 btc in the event that you post enough crap so that you get banned.
Risking 20$  Whoa, now I'm scared; I shall not spam anymore! Exactly. There should be no ROI at all.
Why do you think this? As long as people see posting as some kind of investment, and buying accounts in order to ROI, this will be a problem. The point of this forum was to initially discuss Bitcoin related stuff and provide help for people, not make 100 pages of posts in threads like 'Why is gambling bad?0 (note: 1 post was sufficient to answer this question). |
|
|
|
|
It could be both. For starters, how about you provide a link to his profile?
|
|
|
|
-snip-
There's nothing that helps you build a case. The fees are low enough. Tell me what you want exactly? 1 cent transactions, a fraction of a cent? Free transactions? Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case. Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that. I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.
Tl;dr: You were wrong again. What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.
Which is not achievable with any kind of block size. Regardless of how much decentralization you want to sacrifice, and regardless of how ridiculously high you set the block size limit it will never be enough. Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.
LN benefits: - Trustless
- Cheap
- Near-instant transactions
You will be able to use the LN the same way that you are using Bitcoin now (the TX's are just faster), assuming that there is adoption. Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.
Stop. Erase everything that you've ever read about LN from your brain and start from scratch. Who was talking about "exchanges" as money transmitters? It was an example, "exchange" as in entity. Secondary example: "Newbie" has payment channel to "Newbie2". Noob wants to pay for his Coffee at the Coffee Shop. "Newbie2" has a payment channel with the Coffee Shop. So: Newbie -> Newbie2 -> Coffee shop. The "LN building banks is a risk for Bitcoin" is also pure bullshit. It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.
Bullshit.
Update: It isn't like Ripple. Ripple is centralized, and LN isn't (or won't be). |
|
|
|
Does anyone know when signature campaigns started? I want to compile some stats and make some graphs
The first one that I was in (I think) was Inputs.io in 2013. But: According to him it was not, apparently Butterfly labs was the first one: Here. Can't be sure You'd need to do more research to determine, but Inputs.io would be a nice starting point (I don't think your analysis would be much affected if there was a campaign or two before). Edit 2: Aaaanyways, think this might be one of those topics which get a lot of opinions and contradictions etc, but end up in no way actually changing things.
I like OgNasty's suggestions though; they're new. It now comes down to making the administration notice the thread and waiting for feedback. Don't think any more posts to argue further will prove Lauda wrong, the cat never loses the logic battles
Beat the Cat, you can not! |
|
|
|
What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.
I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit. Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming. There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it: So my memory served me well ("~190-200%"). You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation.
You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period. You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.
Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC). |
|
|
|
you want to spam in every part of the forum
Well they both seem the same. That is out of context. The sentence states that if you have not joined with an intent to spam everywhere for money, you will have no reason to leave if we don't have signatures. Well I can disagree with your disagreement for no reason at all, I believe you do have a reason (or stats to prove so) to disagree
I don't have time to gather stats; and the question would be what kind of stats are appropriate for this? The statement was made due to the impression that I have due to reading a lot while posting in addition to reading a lot more when handling reports. Sure the first few months mods will try seeming as if they don't need the share of payments per reports they handle, then they will surely slack off as they are not getting any reward for the unthanked job that they have to do.
I don't think that is the case. Example: Global moderators tend to earn quite a lot when they're active, yet sometimes they are very inactive (a month or longer). They would not do that if money was a priority. I believe you yourself likely receive more than 0.2 BTC(a significant amount) per month
Even though I'd consider that a small amount (no idea why 90$ would be significant) of money, your statement is correct. |
|
|
|
So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.
It isn't. As finding the right data on this is a bit hard, you can take a look at total fees per day. They balance out. So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too. Not sure whether trolling, stupid or both. I never said that I'm not sure, I said that I can't find the exact link to the exact calculations (hence why "~" was used). Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time.
If people want more TX capacity, they will adopt it quickly, otherwise they are indirectly stating that they don't want additional capacity. Simple as that. Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.
Who said that you would only be able to send/receive between yourself and the exchange? Are you sure that you know how LN is supposed to work (in theory)? Because from what I see, you don't. |
|
|
|
Spam is also a strong word for posting word for posting in different sections of the forum. Would you call , say Knightdk(who I believe is someone after sho who puts effort in his posts) spamming ?
You misunderstood my post; I have never define spam as posting in different sections of the forum. Re-read. The quality of the forum has definitely increased and is being maintained for the last few months and the ones who start spamming are soon reported.
I strongly disagree. it does need money to sustain the group of moderators, "pay" for the admins and the Global mods(who I believe have a higher "cut" from the ad revenue)
It doesn't really need that either, as moderators are not on any sort of 'payroll'. |
|
|
|
Ah, seems quite harsh and might lead to most of the users leaving.
Disagree. If you are here for the proper reasons, and not because you want to spam in every part of the forum that you're able to in order to acquire a small sum of money, you have no reason to leave. Even though I'm currently part of a Signature Campaign, I've been trying to get them removed and/or get spam heavily reduced for quite some time now. This forum does not need quantity, it needs quality. |
|
|
|
Hi there. I got Your point. Im honest - the price is liek that bcos i need this exact amount, but im open for offers.
You can't price items based on how much money you need. That is not how it works, otherwise you will see useless threads like: "WTS Kialara 2014 - 100 BTC; Why? Because I need 100 BTC". You need to find relevant information to estimate the actual value of these coins, else you won't get far. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
