Given that the maximum win is $2000 and that the maximum bet whilst maintaining house edge (in this particular instance) is $55.55, shouldn't yahoo get $2000 + ($323.949 - $55.55)?

And check out this scenario which complicates things in regards to betting:


Suppose someone bets $1000 on red.
It would be -ev to bet on any other option that pays out red numbers.

But depending on the outcome, both sides will have differing arguments...

ðºÞæ

noun (proper)

  1. idiot

---

I suppose if we were to create an account called "omnibenevolent" it would be impossible for it to scam, even if it took your money.

Mask the weed with shit
Sweet odors mixed with sepsis
Just don't pack this bowl

1 @ 0.0075
2 @ 0.0060

Try harder next time.

---

In civilized world this is libel not part of discussion.

Would be cool to see the individual who submitted each caption.

I actually forgot which one of them I'd entered, myself... :/

I can accept that, but from a reputation standpoint, I'm still somewhat standing in my original soil - I'm going to let these ideas fester for a bit from an external perspective and analyze the discussion before making any further replies.

I'm open to changing my mind on this  - just wanted to make sure you knew this was in regard to the negative feedback (and perhaps flags, though I have not done full dives on trust yet) that was created because of this communal consensus against alts.

I can accept this as a sensible solution if we are strictly talking campaign-side (that of business and not of ideological values).

This question is intended as a question for you. I do not know your thoughts in their entirety and this is merely an act of communication: no ulterior motive. I just want to make sure I understand your whole argument rather than create an accidental strawman.

Sure: after all, as of the time writing this post, I still see no logical precursor for this rule.

I don't follow. The situation you are creating is one where the rule is implemented either directly via a genuine rule or indirectly via retaliation from other users.

It is equally trivial to prevent your accounts from being linked. Again, I fail to see the practicality of the rule -- I might understand the rationale once you indicate the negatives of an individual's account list encompassing a significant portion of the signature campaign.

---

This is under the assumption that users exceed the maximum. You might get a few extra posts from those that are borderline spammers (take a look at some of the lower-end campaigns) but most of the time you will see people just post up to the cap and stop.

Moreover, if they wanted more posts, they could simply ask for that post requirement. Am I wrong?

Then I see no reason to keep the rule active.

For what purpose?

And in this instance, if the user is found out, this is irrespective of whether the rule is implemented or not. Any retaliation against the activity would be that of a community action. In this case, I would rather know the public alternate account linkages between identities rather than create an incentive for people who do in secret.

What is the pragmatic difference of using the rule vs. not using the rule? I don't see one.

I am willing to hear out your ideas, of course. I am still actively contemplating this as it has crossed my previous ideals.

Interesting, but why could this not happen right now?

Preface

There has been an itch that has been incongruous with my desires of the forum to which I have vocalized to a few individuals prior to the completion of this text. As once said, brevity is the soul of wit thus I shall concisely examine the renegade philosophy that has clashed against my previous actions. This is, of course, regarding the use of alternate accounts in campaigns, whether they are both within the same campaign or not. The status quo has been to prevent the registration of alternate accounts, however, I have reason to believe that this is merely a surface-level bandage rather than something that can be continued in a long-term setting.

Rationale

Why would I—an anti-spam advocate—suddenly twist zhopself inside-out and begin protesting against the current measures against spam? The intent behind the anti-alt rule is simple: to prevent spam induced by a user's division of labor through a higher frequency of posting.

If one follows the logic without question, then one would come to a similar conclusion only without considering any other factors. We are under this asinine presumption, wherein one expects a user to solely post without regard for their quality when they are using multiple accounts. We do, in fact, have an example of a user who participates in multiple campaigns with publicly-announced alternate accounts: hilariousandco, hilariousetc.

A sweeping generalization can be okay to begin with constructing an idea, though it means that you have the foundation built upon some unsteady scaffolds. Much like an Italian Jenga tower, it will start leaning until it cannot handle the weight of the task upon its unsteady roots.

If we simplify the equation of post quality into the following:

P := post quality
A := number of accounts enrolled

One will usually assume that P and A are inversely proportional. I will, in fact, agree with this metric. However, to use this as the reason for restricting entry is merely a form of fallacious argumentation. The underlying reason that someone is creating poor quality posts is simply that: they cannot create better-quality posts.

If you consider each account independent of the actual cryptographic identity (i.e. hilarious is a cryptographic identity, whereas they own multiple accounts) then you are able to isolate the post quality to each account. We should not be conflating the possibility of spam with the evidence of spam.

There is but a simple solution: abolish the rule.

If, in the event, an individual does enroll with multiple accounts but maintains stellar post quality, it is no different than if a separate cryptographic individual has enrolled with a single account. One may argue against this in lieu of active spam protection, but if spam is a problem then you should eliminate users because they are spamming, not because they might spam.

Moreover, this rule falls in the same way that most legislation does: adaptability. It is quite evident that there are clandestine alts, much like there are public alts. And, yes: they do get caught... but remember, if they were already spamming, then why were they still in the campaign?

TL;DR

Preventing alternate accounts from enrolling in campaigns is stupid. It does not prevent people who secretly use alts and it does not prevent spam. Preventing someone from joining because they have poor post quality is better than preventing someone from joining because they might have poor post quality because of the multiple accounts.

I'll swipe that last ticket!

Ah, ah... it's time for the main account to produce a rue-quest.

Loan Amount: 0.25 BTC.
Address: 398Ak4oMxdPf3bWGGWDeFaNDBYB9NzvxwS
Collateral:

Premise

The Gales of Wind - A Redundant Inquisitive Investigation Into a Recursive Inquiry

Be it far from the truth that an oxymoronic addict of semantic chaos and egregiously egregious content^{(which is it?!)} wishes to play the same field as the ones who thrive on gasping and lashing and self-annihilating masking of their desires and self-righteous, holier-than-thou, yet envious indignation.

Ah, but when an opportunity arises to cast the far-reaching net of asinine pretentiousness, a user who ironically spouts remarks about brevity surely wouldn't hesitate not deny TMAN the lack of opportunity of receiving an absence of consecutive negations in a row.

Lamenting the death of various mental gymnastics, I seek to push the forum towards prosperity in the form of an ideological renaissance rather than that of a financial nature.

Look at the state of the boards: do you see those cracks? Yes, that's right. Those are not cracks in the infrastructure of the forum, but rather cracks of genuine discussion in the swampy, sewer-runoff cesspool that we pretend will get better as time goes on.

Satoshi's intention for the forum may be something to look at but it should not be the fundamental foundation of which all ideas of merit apply. Without a clash of ideas, a lack of utter consensus, any discourse, we are fueled ever deeper into the density-increasing box of shit that we have to splash around in just to see what the new contrived Update of the Year entails.

Conclusion

I shall walk around Canada so that I can spread this fresh air to your doorstep.
As they say, a butterfly's flapping wings in China may eventually become a hurricane in the United States.
Since I am much larger than a butterfly, I should be able to multiply the effect by several magnitudes.
Assuming we use the monarch butterfly's average weight of 500mg and the average human weight of 62kg, we have each of my very footsteps creating 62700000 hurricanes in China.

Thus, to create a hurricane I will only require 1.59489633 x 10^-8 of a step: fifteen nanosteps.

However, since a hurricane must have a wind speed of at least 33m/s we may want to avoid anything more than a single nanostep so keep the speeds below 3 m/s. Moreover, given that the distance from China to the US is double that of Canada to Europe, I will have to proceed with the final conlusion:

I offer a collateral of a half nanostep towards Europe.

---

I expect three star cookies (or, perhaps, a three-star cookie?) at my door by tomorrow.

IMO it's "balanced" with generous collision where hitting the side of the block can bounce you upward -- there is no delay to the jump in this case, afaict.

>or you will get the 210€ back 30 June 2019.

Something's not right here...

---

Oh, and just saying that you don't make contracts will  not get you out of one. You are playing a game of semantics.

Which remarks are racist, by the way? "Pasta fucking idiot" is racist?

Fighting against racism is cool and all but anything that jeopardizes free speech can lead to echochambers. The forum's rules are extremely lax, especially considering scamming isn't even enough to warrant a ban.

Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

---

FAQ:


A search for racism yields no results when it comes to the forum rules.

Voted. Cheers to ZipReg for the game. Took a little bit

It means you broke a rule. Next time, you can avoid that by not breaking rules.

What were you expecting? Do you go on your horsefucker forum and expect to get replies from altcoin activists?