Also, is there a chance that it'll get taken down because of the film clip or the music copyrights? Almost certainly. I have no doubt that one of the trolls who are named in the video will report it shortly. You could use bit.tube as an alternative (NSFW WARNING: landing page may contain some nudity). It's essentially a decentralized video hosting platform. They also have a coin which they use to reward content producers (I think), but I've never looked in to the coin - I only know about it after Jordan Peterson made a big scene about leaving YouTube because of their censorship policies. Because they don't really filter uploads, the landing page (which like YouTube shows thumbnails of trending videos) may well contain some nudity. |
|
|
|
It was predictable Absolutely. Italian debt is currently sitting at an astronomical 131% of GDP, with an incompetent government. With even Germany facing a recession, the Eurozone is on the brink. China's growth is slowing. UK is facing a no-deal Brexit. US can't keep their government open. We are facing another global recession. How do I short the world? |
|
|
|
Can you give me the link of that thread, I have no idea what it is. This is probably the place to start, although you will be missing some of the conversation as they delete any post which calls them out/points out their stupidity/says anything they don't agree with/hurts their feelings. Their nonsense has leaked in to several threads across Meta and Reputation though, so no doubt you will stumble across more. Only a suggestion though! Other good topics might be the flood of newbies complaining about how merit ruined their lives or the endless stream of plagiarizers being banned. I just don't know what LoyceV and The Pharmacist doing on the top of the building  The movie is "The One", and in that scene (the final scene of the film), Jet Li (Lauda) is in a prison colony laying the smackdown on the prisoners. Those two people on top of the tower are prison guards. |
|
|
|
|
Phenomenal. This is kind of thing we want to see. "Gabriel Yulauda" certainly has a nice ring to it. Or maybe "Jet Lida"?
Humbly request your next one is regarding the 20 or so alt accounts and sockpuppets trying to elect themselves to DT despite having about <1% of the merit requirements to do so. I wish I had more merits to send you, but I'm waiting on my source supply to replenish. I'm sure other users will shower you in merit rain soon enough.
|
|
|
|
Time for this pussy-petting ass-licking bitch-fox to give negative trust and chew gum, and I didn't bring enough gum for everybody. Sorry. I've returned that deadly mist to sender after it wiped out my town's entire postal department. Perhaps it could be of some use in this situation. |
|
|
|
it is difficult for me to imagine that someone who's an open great thread with all excellent information to be banned because of plagiarism. There have been a couple of "high profile" users who have been banned in the past due to plagiarism. There have also been accounts which have made good posts in the past which are hacked and used by bounty spammers, which are then banned for spamming or plagiarism. Pmalek makes a good point, and it's the same logic that means trust is not displayed on every board - your decision and attitude towards that post/user would absolutely be prejudiced by a notification saying they were banned. Having said that, the main reason I would like to see a banned notification is so I don't waste time investigating posts I suspect of plagiarism if the user is already banned. An easy way, I think, to reconcile these two points is simply to only display the banned notification to users who have >1000/3000/5000/whatever good reports. |
|
|
|
This is ~1.7k characters.  Maybe add another step (e.g. after X rank and Y merit increase limit to 4-5k characters). If this isn't changed, then simply start a locked thread in archival where you post the list of linked accounts and include a link to relevant post in the feedback. Anything else is probably more or less fine  There was a guy just a few weeks ago (I forget the name and would have no desire to link to him even if I remembered) who was leaving trust ratings with blatantly NSFW pages as reference links. |
|
|
|
I browse Bitcoin Discussion daily, although I comment there far less. I always sort by time of thread creation, rather than by last post, ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0;sort=first_post;desc) for exactly the reasons you state. There are a handful of regulars on Bitcoin Discussion who will post sensible and interesting replies to a topic within the first page or two. However, after that, and certainly by page 5 onwards, 99% of threads are not worth reading. As you give prime examples of, the replies are completely generic and meaningless. There is no actual discussion going on, just spammers churning out their one or two lines to hit their bounty requirements, most of which are saying something that has been said several times already. The question is what we can do to fix this? I spend a lot of time reporting spammy replies, which always get marked as "good", but I have a lot of "unhandled" reports for suggesting threads to be locked. We can never hope to delete all the spammy posts - the volume is simply overwhelming at the moment - but if we rapidly locked or removed the threads (including a mass lock of all dead threads in these boards which are frequently necrobumped with more spam), we might start to get on top of things. |
|
|
|
Coinbase is subject to what the DCG has planned in terms of boosting their own portfolios. It is concerning the number of people who don't seem to realise this. They see Coinbase listing coins like ZRX and MANA, thinking that this somehow signifies an endorsement of the technology/roadmap of these coins, when in actual fact all it signals is that Barry Silbert and other DCG higher-ups are bag holding these trash coins. After all their shady inside trading around their launch of BCH support, it became clear that Coinbase doesn't actually care about advancing crypto in the slightest - all they care about is profit for themselves. It was no surprise, really, that they chose to ignore their own criteria for which coins they would list and instead decided to list a bunch of trash because they wanted more profit for the shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
I have to again completely disagree with everyone on this thread who is saying that new coins with no working product are still beneficial to bitcoin as they attract more people. I think the exact opposite is true.
First of all, most new coins are in fact tokens built on Eth or a similar dApp platform - these tokens are bought with the parent coin, not with bitcoin, and so no money has to "flow through" bitcoin for these coins to be traded. Secondly, if we have a space that contains 2000+ coins/tokens, and >99% of them are worthless, have no product, scams, pump-and-dumps, etc, it gives off a hugely shady and unprofessional view of cryptocurrencies, bitcoin included, to the outside world.
I for one hope that most alts will die, and we can all get back to focusing on the coin with both a working product and real world use - bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Because each and every coin into existence comes with a product and unique value. This couldn't be further from the truth. Almost every new coin or token that is being launched doesn't have a working product. Hell, most of them don't even have a working team, working code, a whitepaper, a github, or a wallet. 99.99% have absolutely no value whatsoever, let alone a unique value, and certainly no real world use. Almost every coin created these days is designed for one thing and one thing only - to make its creators some easy money. They are relying on newbies and the gullible to throw money at their project so they can make a quick buck and disappear. |
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking on SaltySpitoon's point of not giving guests half the required tools, and of them not fully understanding the trust system, and the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a worse idea to show guests only trust ratings without a trust score.
The reason these scammers don't have loads of positive feedback is because there is no reason for them to - their target audience isn't people who can see their trust, but the guests who can't. If we start displaying trust ratings to guests, I would bet a large proportion of my bitcoin holdings that these scammers' trust pages would quickly fill up with rating upon rating from alt accounts and sock puppets. As SaltySpitoon points out, guests don't understand the trust system - they don't understand the difference between trusted and untrusted feedback, and they certainly don't know who is a "reputable" user and who isn't. If they see an account with 1 negative trust but 20 positive trust, they are going to have a favorable view of that account. They won't understand that 1 negative rating from hilariousandco (for example) is probably more accurate than 20 ratings from newbie accounts. They will need some kind of system to help guide them in assessing feedback, and trusted/untrusted and the resulting score is the way to do that.
I can however understand SS's arguments for not showing guests trust at all, and so I think this should be an all or nothing thing. I would still favor the "all" option. Showing them bits of the trust system will do more harm than good.
|
|
|
|
In this case, I feel that showing guests feedback scores is irresponsible and more harmful than not. Fair point. Would you at least concede that we should be allowing guests to see individual trust pages and ratings, even if they don't see a calculated score? Whether those ratings are broken down in to "trusted" and "untrusted" based on DT, or whether they are all just placed under "untrusted", is another argument. |
|
|
|
And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah. Agreed, but they fail to offer a credible or workable alternative. The only options I've heard from them are "Ban Lauda and the gang"* and "Use this trust list filled with known scammers and users who have left no ratings instead". In other words, complete nonsense. I can see a couple of ignored posts from cryptohunter up there, which I can only assume are him calling me a liar and part of the aforementioned gang. The last time I read his posts his idea of "fair" was allowing plagiarizers off the hook and saying that all the altcoin spammers deserved more merit but failing to provide a single post to substantiate that claim. If one of the trolls came up with a system which would actually work, I'd be very keen to discuss it (and I'm certain others would to). The longer they keep talking such nonsense, the more people are going to be utilising that ignore button.
Lauda and the Gang would be a great name for a Kool and the Gang tribute act. I'm not too bad on guitar or keyboards. Anyone else keen? |
|
|
|
The short answer is: You can't. Lies and scams are not moderated (see quote from the rules thread below). You only have to go in to Reputation for 10 seconds to see thread upon thread filled with lies and trolling about several different members. Your only option here is to create a self-moderated thread, but selling from a self-moderated thread is generally viewed as being somewhat shady since you can police the comments and delete anything negative that might be said against you. Your best option is to do what you have done, and simply directly respond to the allegations. Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse. |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who doesn't really worry about this just yet? Not at all. I'm just watching the whole thing with some mild amusement. These trolls will get nowhere. To get someone voted on to DT1, they need votes from 2 members with 250 merit each, amongst other things. These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts. Even if they bought enough merit (because lets be fair, they are never going to earn enough) to give them enough voting power to get one of them to meet the DT1 criteria, that person would probably be excluded long before theymos recalculated the list. cryptohunter, for example, already has 11 DT1 exclusions. This is before any of it even reaches theymos, who, as LoyceV has pointed out, would step in if these scammers somehow did achieve all this. |
|
|
|
-snip- I see where you are coming from, and I do agree with your points to an extent. On the other hand, the forum obviously has a reputation as a good place to post these kind of scams, which is why we see so god damn many of them constantly popping up. I agree guests shouldn't be doing trades, but they fact is they are and we can't stop them unless we make more boards private, which I doubt very much is a route theymos would want to take. Making such a small change as showing Default Trust to guests would save some from being scammed, and if these were people who weren't going to make an account anyway, then I don't think their understanding of the trust system is really revelant beyond being able to read "Trade with extreme caution". In your eBay example, you can still see users' feedback ratings and read their individual feedbacks without an account. None of this prevents them from making an account and learning more if they are interested/motivated to do so. |
|
|
|
Also, if you are going to ask your friends (or more likely, another one of your alt accounts), to come and plead your case on your behalf, it's probably smart to make sure that they are not plagiarizers as well. Running someone else's work through Google Translate doesn't make it acceptable to pass off as your own. The state Corporation and the Vostok project want to jointly introduce blockchain technology into the infrastructure of the digital economy, in particular, solutions for smart cities can be developed. Rostec state Corporation and Vostok blockchain project signed an agreement during the Eastern economic forum, within the framework of which they will create a project office for cooperation in the implementation of the projects of the Digital economy of the Russian Federation program. The parties will invest in the project office, a total of about $2 million the Purpose of cooperation is joint implementation of blockchain technology in the infrastructure of the digital economy. This, in particular, concerns the development of solutions for" smart " cities. First of all, the companies plan to implement the Vostok platform for data collection, storage and exchange between government agencies, citizens and municipal institutions. It also assumes the development of joint competencies for all cross-cutting technologies identified in the state program", - stated in the message of "Rostec". "As part of the state program "Digital economy" rostec Corporation is responsible for the formation of technological reserves. We search for promising projects and identify technology leaders, cooperation with whom opens up new opportunities for the development of digital systems," said Sergey Chemezov, head of the state Corporation, noting that the Vostok platform can be successfully integrated into complex digital projects of both corporate and state customers of Rostec. In addition, within the framework of cooperation between Rostec and the Vostok project, it is planned to create a technological base for the implementation of the "digital enterprise"model. The complex of new technologies will be used in the production cycle, relations with contractors, as well as in the work with data. Collection, processing and storage of statistical data "Rostec" will be implemented on the platform of Vostok. "Vostok is based on Waves' technology base and technological groundwork, the fastest public blockchain in the world, processing up to a thousand transactions
Original here: https://lenta.ru/news/2018/09/13/rostekh/Archived and reported. |
|
|
|
|
It says "probably due to spam or plagiarism", not "definitely due to spam or plagiarism". Most bans are due to spam or plagiarism, such as the ban of your first account. This ban is due to ban evasion.
Multiple accounts are not against the rules, unless one of them has been banned, as in your case. When you are banned from the forum, you are banned from the forum. Not your account, but you. By using another account across the forum your are evading your ban, which is against the rules, and you have therefore been banned again.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
