|
If there is a global blackout we will have far more things to worry about than see what someone with some solar powered computer is doing to Bitcoin.
Besides once the network gets back it can be easily rolled back.
|
|
|
|
The avatar rates are very high. Its also weekly and my guess is that this is close to stopping. It will run another week and the PR/CEO will leave just before the payment.
they will bankrupt from signature campaign soon, hope this happen before anyone else fall for this. $499 is very damn high investment with small profit. This is the only aspect that doesn't make any sense. The best option for them would've been to allow smaller options like 0.1 BTC. Maybe this is the first time for this guy and from next time will be smarter. |
|
|
|
|
The avatar rates are very high. Its also weekly and my guess is that this is close to stopping. It will run another week and the PR/CEO will leave just before the payment.
|
|
|
|
ok i agree what you said, but tell me one thing why you guys promote gambling site...now don't tell me it is different.
Gambling sites ARE different to ponzi sites. Gambling sites lay out the odds of winning and loosing, there is no lie. Ponzi sites are scams which obscure the fact they will collapse sooner or later and run away with the investments. i don't support ponzi but i don't agree what you said about gambling sites there you are gambling against house so in long only they will win so there no point for them to run away with your money since they will always in profit. Will you close your business which is always in profit? In gambling the player is aware of the risks. The site you're promoting doesn't say that the investors have a high chance of getting their money stolen. They are promised high returns instead. The business is not sustainable. They're spending a lot which is a indicator they're going for broke. |
|
|
|
|
Would like to continue.
Current post is 452
|
|
|
|
I really don't like the way everyone is accusing the site in this thread as this thread is only meant for Sig. Campaign. Also as OP has agreed to escrow the funds am pretty sure no one shall have problems.
Anyhow, I can provide you escrow services or maybe even run this campaign for you if you want, if you can send me some proofs in PM.
I have confirmation from him that he accepts to host our funds but he will have to confirm this again on the thread.
Please note that I have lowered the number of available slots so our budget is not "to good to be true".
What was the proof? We would all like to know. Your -ve rating See the reference link. Will remove once issue is solved. with reference link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074272.0 is still present. |
|
|
|
OP it would be good to have the gr33l as a escrow, its better than no escrow and will get people to see you have the funds at least available to cover anyone who joins up to max posts or a reasonable amount  Ok, if at least 2-3 other participants agree on TheGr33k being our escrow for the first week (June  , I will talk with him and we will both post the agreements which will go with the escrow. Because the amounts are large, we will prefer to fund the escrow with the maximum budget estimation for filled slots in the next 2 days and ask TheGr33k to issue the payouts for the first 2 days according to the payout table (will be available soon). After this, we will fund the excrow for the next 2 days and so on until June 8 when we hope we can escrow a much larger amount and not deal with this unnecessary problems.We are now waiting for confirmations on choosing TheGr33k as our escrow with some special conditions explained above. TheGr33k, please note that we can negotiate a commission for your service if you require one.
If you have other proposals regarding who should be our escrow, please post them here.Confirm with TheGr33k before proceeding. He has said in this thread he will provide escrow only if he is given proof. I really don't like the way everyone is accusing the site in this thread as this thread is only meant for Sig. Campaign. Also as OP has agreed to escrow the funds am pretty sure no one shall have problems.
Anyhow, I can provide you escrow services or maybe even run this campaign for you if you want, if you can send me some proofs in PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Where is your announcement thread? You're trying to promote through an expensive campaign but don't have a thread?
|
|
|
|
Escrow?
Muhammed Zakir, would you be available to act as escrow for our campaign? You are very trusted and we see that you offer good and fast escrow services. If someone does not agree with our proposal or has a better idea, please state it here. I will be happy to escrow your campaign *only if* you can send me proofs of your mining. Of course, please PM me with details regarding the information you need to validate our business and I will certainly provide you with anything you may need. Why would you provide mining proof only to escrow ? Escrow is supposed to hold your funds for sig payment. He wont reimburse everyone if you run away like lot of cloud miners have done before. Simply provide your mining address and sold hash power in real time. You dont need to tell us mining firm details, mining manufacturer details or anything. That two parameter will prove beyond doubt that you are mining. For everything else, you are same as other fake cloud miners. I hope Muhammed Zakir will not be upset with us but here is the information I sent him regarding this subject: Please note that we do not offer cloud mining contracts. This is no longer profitable for us, we prefer to use the funds in more locations which we deem to be profitable for our business as a whole. We do not allocate a fixed mining hashing power to each user. Mining is done separately and is only connected to funds received by investors in the sense that we are always trying our best to develop the best mining hardware in the world. We proud ourselves that our recent mining hardware is the most efficient in the world in comparison to other miners available for purchase. We offer clear fixed investment packages which will earn interest proportional to our profits. I can explain more but please ask me about anything regarding CloudThink. This may change in the future if the partners from CloudThink decide it but I know that information regarding the pool we use for mining or other clear information about this is strictly private. Our main mining farm is located in another country with which we have a contract, they have their own rules and they have been private from the beginning. There was no need to make the company/mining farm public or offer cloud mining contracts. The mining farm has always been and will also be (we're pretty sure) profitable without selling any equipment or cloud mining contracts. You were asked for proof of mining. This is no proof, only your word. @MZ and other escrows - don't escrow this campaign unless there is some proof that they are legitimate. |
|
|
|
If you are against sig campaigns then why are they still here? theymos disagrees with you?
No he agrees (in general, I don't know about the finer points), and there will be changes eventually. Lack of time, and a general unwillingness to significantly modify the current forum when a new one is under development are the main reasons it hasn't been done yet. BadBear...then why are the paid campaigns still allowed to continue? I myself have a flat rate so I am paid the same no matter what. It is a shame that these farmers ruined these campaigns for us non spammers. Either ban the campaigns or force them to some strong rules might do it?
Only a set amount of users
If members spam in your campaign - boot them or be shut down
No paid per post only a flat rate
Etc...
I think that would force the campaigns to pick only good posters and not farmers.
See above, and that would be a significant time investment to essentially run campaigns for them, with nothing in return. I'm also not sure how I feel about the forum inserting itself into the business deals of others. Seems a little... Big Brother-ish. It is an easy modification. A new rule which says paid signatures are not allowed. Are you saying that will take more time than you spend finding and banning spammers? |
|
|
|
1. it decreases forum revenue via advertising
2. that in turn decreases compensation for staff
It increases forum revenue by increasing the traffic.
The forum only had the one ad spot for a reason, sig campaigns make it look like crap. If the competition would be too stiff, adding more spots would certainly be preferable to sig campaigns, maybe some of it could even go to posters, I don't know if that's legally feasible though, with tax concerns and all.
Stopping it temporarily would have no effect, people would keep posting in order to "prove a point" and increase their activity for the inevitable return.
If you are against sig campaigns then why are they still here? theymos disagrees with you? |
|
|
|
the only reason BTCBLOGGER has -rep right now is because he is simply running the signature campaign for a ponzi scheme. in my opinion, simply managing a campaign is no reason to distrust someone.
Without BTCBLOGGER there is no campaign and no chance to fool some naive forum users. Why did you leave the campaign? |
|
|
|
In situations like TECSHARE's, you can (if you trust TECSHARE and disagree with Vod) post an additional positive rating responding to whatever Vod said. This will counteract Vod's negative rating. The meaning of having "green" trust is now diminished and will be similar to what was previously the meaning of having black positive trust.
Oh, good point. I changed it so that you have dark green trust if your score is 5 and dark green if your score is 15.  What is the problem with rescaling instead? I don't see any benefits with the higher numbers. |
|
|
|
@theymos what is the thinking behind increasing the numbers? It makes changes too much. Was it to increase the strength of DefaultTrust?
You'll get used to the larger numbers. DefaultTrust doesn't get any sort of advantage as far as I can tell. What is the issue with the earlier numbers? DefaultTrust gets an advantage. Earlier, one default feedback still means 10 months remaining black and slowly increasing number. Now, all one has to do is manage one default feedback and very soon it is green. Similar is the case for moving from light green to dark green. Advantages of trading with DefaultTrust members went up even more, they are going to get bargains now. The meaning of having "green" trust is now diminished and will be similar to what was previously the meaning of having black positive trust. Yes. I think with this new algorithm low positive trust should be shown as black (maybe bold). Light green should be used when reaching some value (at least 5, maybe 10) and dark green when surpassing at least 2x or 3x that first threshold. Either that or rescale it. Dividing it by 5-10. @ Quickseller there is a difference. A single trade or activity gives a lot of numbers now, while a lot of trades outside that makes it remain 0. The number increase works for all those with any numbers. For all those with 0 it remains 0, there is no scaling. a trust score of positive 5 with the new system is the same as a trust score of 0(0)-1(1) under the old system. IMO you really shouldn't be trading just because the other person is on default trust anyway. Difference is anyone with a number gets a higher number. Anyone with a 0 is still 0. If people here didn't do what they shouldn't do there would be no need of the trust system. Thats not how it works, scammers will attempt to trade with DefaultTrust members and wait for a few months to gain a lot of ratings and color. It makes changes abrupt when the DefaultTrust list changes. |
|
|
|
@theymos what is the thinking behind increasing the numbers? It makes changes too much. Was it to increase the strength of DefaultTrust?
You'll get used to the larger numbers. DefaultTrust doesn't get any sort of advantage as far as I can tell. What is the issue with the earlier numbers? DefaultTrust gets an advantage. Earlier, one default feedback still means 10 months remaining black and slowly increasing number. Now, all one has to do is manage one default feedback and very soon it is green. Similar is the case for moving from light green to dark green. Advantages of trading with DefaultTrust members went up even more, they are going to get bargains now. The meaning of having "green" trust is now diminished and will be similar to what was previously the meaning of having black positive trust. Yes. I think with this new algorithm low positive trust should be shown as black (maybe bold). Light green should be used when reaching some value (at least 5, maybe 10) and dark green when surpassing at least 2x or 3x that first threshold. Either that or rescale it. Dividing it by 5-10. @ Quickseller there is a difference. A single trade or activity gives a lot of numbers now, while a lot of trades outside that makes it remain 0. The number increase works for all those with any numbers. For all those with 0 it remains 0, there is no scaling. |
|
|
|
@theymos what is the thinking behind increasing the numbers? It makes changes too much. Was it to increase the strength of DefaultTrust?
You'll get used to the larger numbers. DefaultTrust doesn't get any sort of advantage as far as I can tell. What is the issue with the earlier numbers? DefaultTrust gets an advantage. Earlier, one default feedback still means 10 months remaining black and slowly increasing number. Now, all one has to do is manage one default feedback and very soon it is green. Similar is the case for moving from light green to dark green. Advantages of trading with DefaultTrust members went up even more, they are going to get bargains now. |
|
|
|
|
@theymos what is the thinking behind increasing the numbers? It makes changes too much. Was it to increase the strength of DefaultTrust?
Currently, even 1 trade with a DefaultTrust means becoming green soon. Earlier one had to wait a lot of time to become green trusted. It also makes changes abrupt. Muhammed Zakir went from ??? to +5 with one change in feedback.
|
|
|
|
There are some useful changes, but the first score needs to be rescaled. It varies too much if one trust is added or removed. Makes anyone in Default trust much more powerful and those outside it more worthless.
Muhammed Zakir's rating shows as ???
Yes:  It is a bug.... theymos can surely fix it. It became an easy fix, remove LouReed |
|
|
|
|
There are some useful changes, but the first score needs to be rescaled. It varies too much if one trust is added or removed. Makes anyone in Default trust much more powerful and those outside it more worthless.
Muhammed Zakir's rating shows as ???
EDIT: It has changed now as the negative feedback became untrusted. This only shows how much it fluctuates.
|
|
|
|
how you signed your name under your wallet in blockchain.. please let me know?? A lot of wallets support this option. If you are using Blockchain.info wallet then when generating an address or later you can put a name on it and check the visible to public option. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
