You said "The 0.0001 BTC on each physical Bitcoin will be too little to use, " but does it matter what the value of that bitcoin will be in 10-20 years, or will the fee to send also increase at the same rate as the value of bitcoin? A particular amount of BTC dust will always be dust even if 1 BTC = 1 Million USD? Nobody knows  But 10,000 sat means there's nothing left if you use just 90 sat/byte fee. Fees have been 10 times higher than that. But by the time it's worth $100, I can only hope fees won't be $100+. Can't the owner of the 10,000 Satoshi coin, send the funds to their own wallet at 1 satoshis/vbyte which should confirm in 24 hours and only cost about $.03? You can always send with the lowest possible fee, it's just that the 24 hours is no guarantee in the future. When I pay an online payment processor, they usually charge an extra fee because of their cost to consolidate all those small payments again. That fee alone is usually more than 10000 sat. Not all sites make you pay such a fee. |
|
|
|
random internet hobos I like it! 2000+ Activity Rank should be "Random Internet Hobo". |
|
|
|
Cute, my first Flag! That took just over 15 months. Unfortunately, you forgot to add any evidence to your thread, so it classifies as Trust Flag abuse. That's okay for someone who'll never reach DT, but I've left you a nice neutral tag nonetheless. Why the negative feedback on my account? Scammer part of Lauda Gang Your Reference puts me in the Foxpup Merit Cycling Club and obviously I'm The Thick-Skinned Gang's Supreme Leader, but I'm not part of the Cult of Lauda. Did copy/pasting confuse you? The cat's Cult has >100 members though, so you'll need to get yourself a bit more Activity before you can Flag them all. Clearly you're emotional, so I'm not even going to dignify "Scammer" with a response. Who are you anyway? And why did you edit your post to "huhui" after I Merited it? My master has demanded I need to oppose them all, so this made it nice and easy. Let me make it even easier to Support (Lol) | Oppose smartcontracts100's Flags: 2020-09-16 Wed 18.25hsource: loyce.club2331 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged o_e_l_e_o (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, GazetaBitcoin. 2330 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged TalkStar (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2329 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged owlcatz (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2328 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged Vod (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2327 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged The Pharmacist (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2326 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged LoyceV (type 1, see why). Supported by smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2325 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged suchmoon (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV, smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, examplens, TheUltraElite, HCP, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Jawhead999, Timelord2067, hacker1001101001, Little Mouse, GazetaBitcoin. 2324 Insufficient support. ( Support | Oppose) smartcontracts100 flagged Foxpup (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV, smartcontracts100. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, The Pharmacist, examplens, TheUltraElite, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, Timelord2067, GazetaBitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'd suggest using pay to many in electrum This is what I would use (I fixed your typo). Simply use a spreadsheet to create a list with 200 lines like this: bc1qwd9pg4a6yejnpaakp58vwc759kgyf5x2qunuu8,0.0001 Then copy/paste that into the "Pay to" field in Electrum. The transaction might still be expensive though, I think that's 80000 bytes and at a high fee of 100 sat per byte it'd cost 0.08btc, at the minimum fee with a longer conf it'd cost only 0.0008 but getting a transaction of that size to confirm at low fees light be harder. It's not that bad: slightly over 6300 bytes for 200 SegWit outputs, and there's no need to use a high fee. Just use the lowest fee possible, it'll confirm in a few days (or weeks). This whole process will be done no more than 6 times (200 sent once, and then 100 sends five more times). I'm making some physical bitcoins. You're basically creating Bitcoin dust. Even though it doesn't take much fee to fund, spending that many small amounts costs more in fees. The 0.0001 BTC on each physical Bitcoin will be too little to use, because if someone sends it, the receiver will get an even smaller amount and they too have to pay a transaction fee to use/consolidate the funds. Unless someone is going to consolidate many of those small inputs at the same time, there's not much point in using them. I thought you should realize this before turning 0.07 BTC into dust. Is there some kind of use case for going with the LN here? If so, how would I go about it? This would be interesting, but the only method I've seen so far is custodial. For a physical Bitcoin that's probably going to remain untouched in a long time, that's not a good solution. |
|
|
|
That's up to the Mods  There have been no exceptions to the general “plagiarism” rule, yet. Lauda didn't get banned after (years old) plagiarism was found. It varies per case. |
|
|
|
I think for improvement, can move the list of sources to the top, or write at the beginning that I am not the author. That clarifies things My part of the text, where I summarize the essence or bring it to some author's thought a piece of text from the author's article, where it is better to leave it in the original Did you know you can use an URL above a quote? WORD OF THE DAY Code: [quote author="[url=https://www.dictionary.com/]Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com[/url]"]
WORD OF THE DAY[/quote] |
|
|
|
In general, I think users who aren't Merit sources shouldn't have a hard time finding good enough posts on their own. Merit giveaway threads often receive Merit, so that might be a reason to start one. See theymos' post on the subject |
|
|
|
When I was doing this article, I used a large number of articles, because one article contains an interesting piece, another article contains something interesting, the third article adds something that was not in the second article, and so on. I spent a whole day on editing and additions. And if you try on this tag for each quote, then the whole article will shine with these references. That is indeed what scientific papers do. According to my observations on this forum, who makes compilations from articles into one big one, never use this system from Wikipedia. Everyone uses links to sources either at the beginning of the article or at the end, but I have not seen any links to sources in the article. I know it happens a lot, but that doesn't make it right. And you can think anything you want when the goal is just to cling to something and inflate the drama out of it, as this bot farmer did. Probably, but despite who the messenger is, I still think he has a point. And you can avoid giving him that pleasure by improving your references. Here the question is more in rewriting. That is, there is an opinion that it is better to write the entire article in the form of a retelling in your own words than just copy the finished text.
But I am not a native English speaker Maybe a combination of "quotes" with proper references, and rewriting (or even better: creating a summary) of the rest? How many articles I have published in both English and Russian, I received more words of gratitude than reproaches, which means that almost everyone is satisfied with everything in my articles and guides. Of course, and nobody questions you're posting useful things here But I will take note of your words, I will soon release a large guide to UniswapV2, where I will apply a slightly different approach to citations from the original. Thank you for your opinion. Great! I don't think you should be banned over this, but if you use it to improve, that's an absolute win. this idiot
the asshole
crooked inept trolling. Don't let it get to you  |
|
|
|
And finally, about my topics. I have never claimed authorship, my goal on the forum is to learn something from others myself, and what I find on the Internet is what I share. I do think you can improve upon this: The date of writing the Russian article, which I have indicated in the sources: 29.07.2020 I think you can/should improve on the way you use references. First: "on the internet", plagiarism and copyright violations are widely used and often more or less accepted. Bitcointalk is the only forum I know that bans users for plagiarism. In the academic world, plagiarism is probably the worst sin you can commit: everything you use from someone else should get a reference. Even then, you should only copy something verbatim if it's said in such a way that you can't do it justice by changing the wording, and if you do quote someone, you should use "quotation marks" together with the reference. Bitcointalk is a bit weird in this respect, and falls in between "the rest of the internet" where nobody cares about anything, and academics, which is very strict on plagiarism. If you copy an entire article and just post a link below it, it's totally fine on Bitcointalk! I don't think this is right though, and apart from plagiarism it could also be considered a copyright violation. It's often used for advertising or just to increase post count. I think there should be a forum rule against "link dumps" like this. The proper way to show an external article would be by giving a short summary, or quoting a short relevant part, followed by a link for further reading. But I don't think there's much much discussion value if you create a new topic solely for an article on another website. I probably wouldn't do it myself. If you use several different articles as reference (by copying text directly, by translating text or by paraphrasing), I think you should add a reference to each part. If you use a source many times, you can use for instance super script numbers (" [1]") (like Wikipedia). If you create a very long topic, but only show the sources after clicking Page Down 21 times, it looks like you wrote it by yourself until I finish reading. If you copy data from other websites, it should be obvious to the reader that you did this. If someone stops reading before reaching the end, he'll never see your sources. Let me put it this way: if you (or anyone else) would use my text in such a way, it wouldn't feel like you do justice to the effort I put in. If you improve on your referencing, you'll also avoid giving anyone an excuse to create topics like this. |
|
|
|
Ok - Donator was not acceptable to the community. But... VIP rank is higher than Donator.  VIP doesn't sound like it included a donation (even though it did). I think this boils down to the discussion to lower the donation amounts of 10 BTC and 50 BTC to an amount that's closer to the dollar-value it had at the time others donated. That didn't happen: 1 BTC = 1 BTC. with a custom title. I've seen members who got a custom title by just asking theymos. That might work for Vod too.
How about a new rank for users who have been around for a decade? This can be measured by reaching 10 full years in Activity periods, meaning a post in at least 260 Activity periods. This doesn't have to be 3640 Activity, one post per Activity period is enough. |
|
|
|
I do not see any related thread regarding on how to spend bitcoin or to make transactions like the process of transferring bitcoin from wallet to exchange or exchange to wallet. Sending Bitcoin varies per wallet and per exchange. You can probably find a guide or Youtube video for a certain wallet, but I consider this to be very basic. If you entered Bitcointalk without ever sending or receiving Bitcoin, you should try |
|
|
|
~72 bytes is a considerable size increase per input too which can't be ignored. True, but I don't expect someone who uses this to care about paying a few dollar more on transaction fees. |
|
|
|
I don't know the number, but my understanding is it's around one hundred users are merit sources. There are 97 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 21171 sMerit per 30 days. Perhaps there should be more merit sources that have a far lesser number of merits each week/month A practical limit is the amount of time theymos wants to invest to assign new Merit sources, and probably check how they're doing once in a while. I think the main goal of the Merit system has been reached: there's much less spam. |
|
|
|
It is essentially the same as setting up an x-of-y multisig, where the boss holds x-1 keys and the employees collectively hold x-1 keys. That's what I was thinking: make a 3 out of 4 multisig, A holds 2 keys, B and C each hold 1 key. Although amaclin's solution looks impressive, multisig is complicated enough as it is already. |
|
|
|
mikelsmith2020, I see that KeepKey price is $49+shipping, and with 50% off I paid $5 on Black Friday, but shipping was about 5 times more. I made several posts about my experience in Yes, the Keepkey is a worthless black bricklet, and the end result is that I put it back in it's box. I don't recommend buying it. if you can wait for Black Friday That's what I do for many items that I don't need in a rush. Only 2.5 months left. I don't have some extra bitcoin to buy ledger nano X If you can't afford an expensive hardware wallet, you probably don't need one. I bought the cheapest Ledger (also on Black Friday) and so far it's okay. Here too I don't like the user interface much, but with Electrum it works as expected. From what I've read (but I haven't tested it), Trezor is better. I may get one on Black Friday too. |
|
|
|
For example:
If you have 1000 Activity and 1000 merites, get NFT token number 1
If you have 1500 Activity and 1500 merites, get NFT token number 2 So it's a supplement to the Ranking system, with the exception that you can sell it? |
|
|
|
Why would Bitcointalk want/need NFT tokens? Reward for useful forum participants. I'll take Bitcoin, thanks Seriously though, who's going to decide who's "useful"? This sounds like a new source of forum drama. |
|
|
|
Added. Not added, it hasn't been updated in over a year, while theymos posted more on the subject. Added. I've given you your own History subsection Added. Sorry it took me this long to add, your list was long enough to end up on my "TODO when I have a lot of time"-list. Added. Added. Added. Unless I am missing something, it does seem that the wall observer thread should be on the list somewhere, no? Added. I gave it a honourable spot on top, and made it link to new posts: That must mean that I missed the point? You are trying to emphasize conciseness? getting a lot of information in a small amount of space? I will concede that the WO thread does not tend to provide that. I'm not sure, so I just added it
I've also added a some of my own topics: |
|
|
|
Let's include what it is: Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) "are unique, digital items with blockchain-managed ownership. Examples include collectibles, game items, digital art, event tickets, domain names, and even ownership records for physical assets." Why would Bitcointalk want/need NFT tokens? Asking the real questions here! zasad@: can you give an example of how you think this can be used on Bitcointalk? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
