If you take a compensation (in this case a bug bounty), you are legally entitled to nothing.
This is my current opinion on bugs and compensations and we can leave it at that. Of course it is... Considering it is the exact opposite response you would and have had if/when you weren't wearing their signature. Funny how your ethics depend on whether or not you're paid by the offender. Your word is meaningless and your opinions clouded by greed. This is yet another example of why you belong nowhere near any sort of position of trust. You really need to stop spreading unecessary lies and derailing the thread. Thanks. You really need to stop being tied to scams. Literally everything you touch turns into a scam. ICOs you escrow, signatures you wear, somehow people always end up having their money stolen, and it always seems to not be your fault, then it happens again. |
|
|
|
If you take a compensation (in this case a bug bounty), you are legally entitled to nothing.
This is my current opinion on bugs and compensations and we can leave it at that. Of course it is... Considering it is the exact opposite response you would and have had if/when you weren't wearing their signature. Funny how your ethics depend on whether or not you're paid by the offender. Your word is meaningless and your opinions clouded by greed. This is yet another example of why you belong nowhere near any sort of position of trust. |
|
|
|
|
Last time a casino didn't make a payout for reasons that were beyond their control, they were labeled as scammers and everyone wearing a signature advertisement for them was harassed until they removed the signature.
Now that Lauda is the one advertising for a company that has fallen victim to their own poor operation and refusing to make payouts, it will be interesting to watch the double standard unfold.
Obviously if the player played by the rules and won, they are due the jackpot. I'm sure FortuneJack isn't going to find all the people negatively effected by the bug and give them their money back...
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats to the Grin team! Looking forward to seeing how this coin develops.
|
|
|
|
I know that can modify the email address, but it seems that can't change the username.
You can't. Only VIP users (cost 50 BTC) can change their username. Also, theymos does that sometimes (if he agrees and has the time for it). VIP’s can add a custom title, but I believe Donators (10 BTC) and VIPs can both change their display names, which is what OP is I’m sure referring to when he says username. I say this because I have the ability to change mine. |
|
|
|
|
These rounds are now sold out. I will be beginning the process of minting the 2019 rounds shortly (soon as I reach it on the to-do list). If anyone is interested in locking up a coin before they sell out, PM me and let me know.
|
|
|
|
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust. There were many scammers in the DT, so how trusted was it after all? So many reasons why relying on a DT was and remains to be a bad idea. It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea. I think the % of scammers on DT went up dramatically with this new system, but it’s still early. I’m sure at some point things will work themselves out and this will be a positive for everyone. If not, it definitely encourages people to rely on their own lists, so mission accomplished. My point is that this new DT perceived trustworthiness is better aligned with real trustworthiness. I disagree, but I have no desire to sling mud as I’ve already made my opinions on certain users and events known. Ultimately, it’s just a rating system. If it makes more people happy than it does upset, which it appears to, then it’s hard to not see it as a success for the forum. |
|
|
|
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust. There were many scammers in the DT, so how trusted was it after all? So many reasons why relying on a DT was and remains to be a bad idea. It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea. I think the % of scammers on DT went up dramatically with this new system, but it’s still early. I’m sure at some point things will work themselves out and this will be a positive for everyone. If not, it definitely encourages people to rely on their own lists, so mission accomplished. |
|
|
|
|
Just a reminder. Escrows are only done on bitcointalk. I will never ask you to use a different site and you should always double check the address in the OP of this thread to make sure you’re sending to the right place. Safe trading!
|
|
|
|
It is very simple pull up this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtviewNow look who is supporting who then pull up bpip org search the user and see who is in their top 10 fans and receivers (better if could see top 20) so we have a system where they award themselves merit, then use those awards to vote each other into positions of trust. sounds legit so you end up with 1. proven liars 2. proven double starndards 3. proven people that create 2 accounts to troll and sig spam for btc dust 4. proven abusers of the trust system 5. the rest a bunch of scared ass wimps who will turn a blind eye to it all. complain to theymos well that will not work because he put too much effort into building these systems to recognise that people are colluding and using the subjectivity he left in there to abuse the power they have. simple and compelling theory based upon historical observable events I agree with your take and think the current state of DT is embarrassing. However, theymos is trying his best to put in place a system that will ultimately lead to fair and accurate ratings. He sees what’s happening and I don’t think complaining about it will get him to change anything any sooner. Best case scenario, this system will be used as a honeypot to identify longtime abusers and blacklist them. Worst case scenario, the trust system is run by scammers so it can’t be relied upon, forcing you to make your own trust list and you go on with your life. Unless you’re dependent upon signature campaigns to keep a roof over your head, it really shouldn’t effect you at all. |
|
|
|
|
Signature campaigns are less popular among higher ranked members these days because the payments have fallen drastically. The campaigns I’m offered currently pay about 85% less in BTC as what I was wearing a year ago. Add in an 80% drop in the BTC price to go along with it, and they’re hardly worth the trouble anymore. Especially when you add in posting requirements and headaches with signature managers or scammy advertisers. I think we were just in a golden age where advertisers’ BTC budgets became huge payouts due to the increase in BTC rate. Now things are settling down and there’s enough competition where advertisers are able to get more bang for their buck, and some members value their endorsement more than advertisers are willing to pay.
|
|
|
|
Here's how the voting would work if it were performed right now. The first one comes after all of the other criteria, and is then fed into the second.
-snip-
Nice work, although I believe that the number of people that will understand the process will drop by over 90%.  Gotta respect the effort involved. |
|
|
|
I have 214 earned merits. Let's assume I have included 30 persons in my trust list. How will system choose my vote, I mean by which criteria, since I have capability of voting for 21 member. How someone from my 30 members will be excluded/included?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  When building your trust list, I tend to encourage people not to worry about little details like this, and instead just think about the system in broad strokes. If this results in poor outcomes, then that's a problem on my end.
|
|
|
|
If I like it I will buy more.
You make them sound pretty great. I’d order some but I’m hesitant to spend the BTC right now. Might need to break down and get one while the low price model is still available. |
|
|
|
I highly doubt anyone receives their salary in cryptocurrency, maybe in Japan, but clearly not in Europe or US.
All of the bitcointalk employees get paid in BTC... |
|
|
|
I've given him a little shit lately for posting so many topics. I think his heart is in the right place, but perhaps the forum doesn't need a new thread to be updated with his every action.  |
|
|
|
|
That same NiceHash miner should be able to use your cpu as well. You probably can’t profitably mine much with it, but might be able to breakeven on around a dollar a day in BTC mining something.
|
|
|
|
It is cool when you look at his next two tweets. Within a couple weeks he was thinking about adding anonymity and reducing CO2 emissions.
Is there any record in Bitcointalk of how he intended to add anonymity to Bitcoin? What did he think was necessary for greater anonymity? And I found it curious that he almost at the end of the year decided to learn Haskell. Would he be interested, if still alive, by a cryptocurrency that used Haskell, like Cardano(ADA)? I haven’t dug through his old posts, but I’m sure he was discussing it somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
It is cool when you look at his next two tweets. Within a couple weeks he was thinking about adding anonymity and reducing CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
|
0.375
Congrats! Go ahead and send BTC to 168WXhArv7Fasqvi2xm5MQMfLhG18jifMe and let me know where to ship. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
