|
How about giving us a more concrete example and numbers? How many threads on the first 2-3 pages represent such services? I don't have the time to look/count right now.
|
|
|
|
Dissolves the entire damn point of running signature campaigns.As I have stated earlier,this sounds very illogical to me.
That is the exact point behind this. The result will be a insane reduction of signature campaign (there might be a possibilities of a few members remaining (that do pay)). |
|
|
|
Little linguistic precision : the Core vs the others fight is the war, and the round against Bitcoin Classic was a part of the war, a battle. So we can say that we won the second battle of this endless war  ! That was indeed what I meant with my previous statement. Or maybe Ethereum   The count of 0.12 classic nodes rose a little recently (or maybe it's because all the core codes moves to 0.12.1 It isn't really important at the moment. Node count (especially in a short time period) was never a reliable metric of anything. |
|
|
|
He is always welcome to contribute to core. But giving back commit access after all what had happened would be a serious risk imo.
Some people tend to misunderstand what the removal of commit access means. Gavin can still work on Bitcoin Core and submit pull requests. He does not need nor deserve commit access anymore. Sigh... I really hoped bitcoin would succeed, but with attitudes like these, it's probably doomed to fail...
The only way that Bitcoin can "succeed" (whatever this is supposed to mean, and I'll assume mainstream adoption) is by secondary level solutions such as LN. Otherwise, if you follow Gavin's proposal you would end up with a highly centralized and inefficient system (inefficient because it still won't compare to traditional centralized systems). (In case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about everyone other than the OP)
Seems like you're in the same bag of fools like OP is. Stopped reading at "Blockstream takeover".
The "Blockstream & Core are evil && Bitcoin is failing" propaganda tends to be quite annoying sometimes. |
|
|
|
The OP and some of people in this thread were suggesting negative feedback bombing people who sell acounts or who are involved in any way that is what i was referring to. I would suggest if that ends up happening to first warn people first for a while - "stop selling accounts or else etc" if newbie account it doesn't mean anything, might aswell negative feedback bomb.
Okay, that makes more sense. I initially though you were referring to banning account sales and/or removing signature campaigns/signatures. If you are banning account sales and its an official forum decision then yeah discussion is over, you just delete topic, everyone has to agree  While technically true, I doubt theymos would make such a radical change if everyone is against it. If you ban signature campaigns then account sales will probably drop to almost nothing but forum activty also drops, does that matter? i dont know.
Quality over quantity. I'd rather have 10 useful posts a day, than 1 000 useless ones. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
Not if it increases profits of hardcore account farmers due to them being the only people who sell accounts in the short term. Negatives mean nothing on some random newbie account.
I have no idea where you're getting this from, but this won't be the case. Also in longer term you strengthen anonymous account farmers position and alienate hundreds of better quality members in 1 swoop.
Again, neither one hits. Exactly how would we strengthen the position of account farmers if we disallow account sales? This is contradictory. Quality members will be not affected at all. Unless you're talking about signatures, in that case neither one is true again. People which do not post solely due to being a signature campaign participants, will continue to post as nothing has happened. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal goods.
|
|
|
|
1.) Negatives for all sellers/buyers of accounts is potentially not effective for targetting account farmers:
That is not a negative, that is a positive. You should not be selling accounts in the first place. 2 BTC was mentioned, someone said that was crazy high, i agree its high. You could charge on a monthly basis 0.1 or 0.05.
Your suggestion is absurdly foolish. Charging a monthly basis of that amount, which is lower than what some earn in 1 week, will do nothing at all. Problem is people will just spam and then since they are a paying customer, who will stop them?
Once there is no incentive to spam (paying signature campaign), you will be surprised at how quickly most of them reduce their posting. There have been periods where I have seen 100+ permabans in the modlog.
This forum needs more of those periods. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Now there is a new problem. With Blockstream's takeover of core and eviction of Gavin
Bullshit. Gavin is not even a Core contributor anymore, and has barely contributed anything in the last 12 months. People who aren't active should not have such a level of access anyway. He was not evicted at all. If he wants to contribute, he can open a pull request just like everyone else. Make an IDENTICAL copy of core. No changes whatever, core1 and core2 - not one line of code being different.
No thanks. Theymos' censorship and Blockstream's takeover of core are bad for Bitcoin and bad for our future.
Bullshit. The people that fed you these thoughts are what is bad for Bitcoin. The actual problems of bitcoin are not even looked at anymore.
People who can actually deal with those problems are working on them, and people like OP are just trying to disrupt and waste everyone's time. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
There is no context anyways, i stopped taking part in these discussions months ago.I don't give a fuck to DT after doog's thread if that's what you think.
No idea what you're talking about. The idea is not wrong but its unrealistic. having an ambition to become a big man one day is unrealistic & an ambition to become a big Biomedical scientist is realistic.
people who spend half of the day on forums spamming for 400 bucks are not going to pay 800 $ loll...
You aren't building up your argument properly. As I've already said, we don't need a perfect solution, we need a good one. If it reduces spam by e.g. 50% for starters, I'm fine with that. |
|
|
|
I got silent cause of policing, cant say bout others,that too full of close mindedness,illogical, IMO's ,power-trip policing  and also the fact that how they all sort out ratings and support each other.Doo definitely deserves the red mark for the ponzi script coding according to the policing i see here but they are afraid to point out the Gods.Fucking cliques. Soooo much hypocrisy. That's strange. Just stay away from the things that tend to make you receive a negative trust rating and you should be fine. DT members should not give you rating based on the things that you've said. No matter how many but i don't think theymos is so fucking unrealistic naive to implement such an idea.
There's nothing wrong with the idea. |
|
|
|
Why not you can give any amount of course if you think this has help you a lot and if you are a dev of the coin and you've gotten a lot of supporters and investors through this forum it is just right to give something in return here..
Please do not post anymore until you read the following book:  Theymos says it wont be changed since the forum really doesnt need it right now
While he did say that he would most likely not change it, I don't think that was the reasoning (I might be wrong). In any case, adding an additional Donation-tier on the new forum doesn't require much effort. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
