Btw, I'm also thinking of taking out some of the older hardware such as the Antminer U1 & U2 since they are outdated and very unprofitable. What do you think? Take them out, or leave them on the list?
Maybe leaving them there could be useful for future references. And perhaps, if the list get too long, using a separate table for this legacy hardware to not hurt readability. Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
The correlation between Christmas and BTC price seems so strong, proven and logical that it remember me that other one from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, where the decline in the number of pirates is clearly the cause of global warming:  |
|
|
|
As far as I know they keep 100% Bitcoin
The usefulness of the unqualified analysis is wonderful!
Yes, this makes sense to me. I mean, why Newegg should offer this discount for BTC payments if the objective is to swap them for FIAT? Why don't offer it (also) in USD in the first place? |
|
|
|
So how many people will get selected to get 10TH contract because right now I only see one person who is active in all of this. Seems little odd for one person out of many only getting this hash. Is this not for every person who joins then if not needs to be made clear. However if it is and your giving out 10TH contracts to people to earn seems you have a lot of equipment to throw around got any pictures of your cloud data centre with the equipment in?
100% PPS with zero fees and automatically reinvests 100%
100% re invest so how do you turn this off if you want to generate payments to BTC address. If you are auto compounding then this means you do indeed increase your hash but you gain nothing in return because payments are set to 100% auto compound.
You (and a couple of members before you) should really read more carefully the OP, because everything you need to understand is there.  Furthermore, there is another hint in the signature for this campaign: > Most cloudmining companies are ponzi scams < |
|
|
|
|
The thumbnails look OK to me on the entire post, without any Proxy Error image.
In the governmental hearing section I can see 5 pictures for USA, 2 for CANADA and 1 for FRANCE.
|
|
|
|
Full member sig just doesn't wok with small resolution screens, there is nothing to fix.
Also a bigger than usual font setting of the browser can lead to that behaviour, where only the first line of the Full member signature (light gray) is shown, no matter the resolution of the device. In fact, it seems to me that it is exactly what's happening: in that image you can notice how the message text is bigger than the font size used for the user's profile box on the left. |
|
|
|
I think the OP would delete all his actions as if he had never been registered here , but I don't think it is possible ( or better it is possible but theymos will never do this).
He can manually delete everything, wouldn't be the first person to do so. Yes, but copies of whatever is deleted are stored, just in case. |
|
|
|
Is my signature fine?
If it's not allowed to have additional "not-service-related ones" in signature I have to leave because this thread is definitly worth it to keep.
Thanks!
I deduce it's not allowed anymore, no matter the relation to the service or the order in which they are. I had your same signature, Cloudmining 101, a nice guide to avoid scams in cloud mining. It was after BITMIXER signature but I had to remove it because, after the update to the new rules, I was getting a "Signature not found" error. After all, the updated OP is clear: ...
Rules
- You must have no negative feedback points
- Only constructive posts! If majority of the posts is in off-topic sections, bump, spam, few words, picture - you will be banned forever.
- No other signatures are allowed at the same time.
- Must post in multiple sections of the forum.
...
|
|
|
|
Well I still don't think we should give the account negative feedback merely for changing hands unless there is good reason to (perhaps you strongly suspect a scam). Maybe a neutral one as a warning if you're concerned would be better, but that's just my opinion. Imagine if some kid has saved up $100 or more to buy an account because he sees it as the only or best way to acquire bitcoins and as soon as he does he finds it has been ruined by negative feedback even though account selling isn't against the rules.
In some exceptional cases, like maybe the kid example, I suppose that few posts or PMs of explainations could easily end in the retreat of the negative feedback, if said explainations make sense. I hope I'm not wrong, but I imagine it has already happened. Anyway, always nice to read opinions from staff and older members. No worries. I won't be selling my account at all.
I bet there was little doubt about that. Note that if a person with positive trust sells their account, then they really weren't a trustworthy person in the first place. Therefore it doesn't really matter which account owner you are actually dealing with. Either way it would be an untrustworthy person with positive trust.
Wondering if I'm reading this right, but doesn't it imply - in other words - that a sold account should have a negative trust with no exceptions? |
|
|
|
I can see why some people may find it deceptive, but that all depends on the circumstances of the individual and the account in question. I don't really find anything deceptive about someone buying and posting from GenericBitcoinUser69 to earn them some bitcoins, but would if say someone like DannyHamilton decided to sell their account and the new owner tried to pass himself off as him.
Sure, selling the account of a known and well respected member would be a way bigger problem, but IMHO even when the account is from an unknown member I tend to see it as an unfair thing, like I wrote in the edit of my previous post (I saw Salty's reply only after I posted mine, sorry for the mess): ...
I'm not saying account buying for the intention of scamming doesn't happen, I'm sure it does, but its a lot more uncommon than people purchasing accounts for the purpose of signature advertising which is a more guaranteed and legitimate way to make BTC.
Isn't it still somehow deceiptive? I mean, in this case, from the point of view of the sig-campaign owner. this practice is counter productive. It gets account trading to go further underground which makes people to be able to do more potential damage when they can buy feedback without detection
Mmm, not sure. It's clear that underground selling is unavoidable, so the selling of accounts isn't forbidden on the forum. But why we should make the life easier for them? At least, with this pratice we can stop an horde of wannabe scammers. The most dangerous ones probably act already under the radar anyway. I don't know, mixed feelings about it. It's not really about making it easier for scammers. You could argue we're also making it harder for them too. If account selling was banned it would jusy push the practice off site and without the use of escrow etc more innocent people would likely get scammed out of their money and/or accounts. Not sure if I've explained enough clearly my position (just in case): I'm not for banning account selling on the forum. I agree that it can't be avoided so it doesn't make much sense try to stop it. I was just arguing about the practice to give them a negative feedback and I was referring to the recent lack of this practice when I wrote "why we should make their life easier?" |
|
|
|
I will only use IE, all other browsers are garbage.... back to the facts, we are about to rocket off when the shorters race each other to cover
I really hope that your speculations about BTC are more valuable than your opinions about browsers.  |
|
|
|
That doesn't happen as much as it used to unless the account looks like it's going to be used nefariously. Some people used to leave account sellers negative on sight as well but that doesn't really happen either now.
I wasn't aware of it, thanks for pointing it out. I have some difficulties to imagine a fair use of a sold account; it always seemed to me deceiptive at least and leaving neg on sight to buyers/sellers was a good antidote. this practice is counter productive. It gets account trading to go further underground which makes people to be able to do more potential damage when they can buy feedback without detection
Mmm, not sure. It's clear that underground selling is unavoidable, so the selling of accounts isn't forbidden on the forum. But why we should make the life easier for them? At least, with this pratice we can stop an horde of wannabe scammers. The most dangerous ones probably act already under the radar anyway. I don't know, mixed feelings about it. EDIT: ...
I'm not saying account buying for the intention of scamming doesn't happen, I'm sure it does, but its a lot more uncommon than people purchasing accounts for the purpose of signature advertising which is a more guaranteed and legitimate way to make BTC.
Isn't it still somehow deceiptive? I mean, in this case, from the point of view of the sig-campaign owner. |
|
|
|
...
I will hold till zero
This one is in pair with the much beloved "Real Hodlers delete their private keys"  |
|
|
|
I am saying the logic of account membership for example when a person has 10+ feedback or no negative feedback shows he is trustable, but when the account is buyable everyone can sell his/her account easily meaning that selling trust
Don't forget that when an account is sold, it usually gains some nice red negative feedbacks by trustworthy members that remember us it was a bought account. And considering that the feedbacks from those members in default list weight way more than others, we can argue that selling trust is not easy doable. |
|
|
|
Doesn't this tell us something valuable? Isn't he then a paid troll? Paid by someone?
Nobody pays nobody to troll for nothing...Amirite?
Well, it could be that OP hope in a price crash to buy at lower price... But it also could be just for the "fun" of trolling or even because he get paid. Every type of these strange species seems to be well rappresented on the forum...  |
|
|
|
Reported. Bye bye. FUDster.
Since when is FUD a reportable offence  I think it's because of this: He's been doing this all day.
Different new account, same content, thread deleted by mods, rinse and repeat.
We really need to re-institute newbie jail.
|
|
|
|
Seems like Cloudmining.website took the "Masters Cub" cloudy mining concept and ran with it:
[...]
Yesterday I needed to remove your sig. It really happened sooner than I wanted but I can assure you it wasn't done to switch to this Cloudmining, I liked your 100% reinvesting way more! |
|
|
|
We change rules, see the first message. Pay per post now.
I liked so much this signature campaign because it was the only to be spam-risk free.  Now it's like all other campaigns that use the ubiquitous pay-per-post scheme which has, in my opinion, lowered the overall quality of users' posts. Beside that, I think I'll mantain the signature for some time and see how it works. PS: Whatever the rates are, I would suggest to differentiate rates among different member levels; I don't think that a post from a Legendary member can be valued on the same level of one from a Full member. |
|
|
|
PS: Can't wait for the payday, 10TH are awesome!  Payday? When would that be ? Considering the growing hashrate, I would say as late as possible, but the best is if it goes forever as you stated.  the sig would look prettier if it were above your other sig I agree with you, but unfortunately the other signature requires to be in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
