Fair enough. But the better forumla, as LoyceV has pointed out, would be (Earned merit + 1)/Number of posts. Including airdropped merit and then multiplying that by activity, when they are essentially counting the same thing, puts a massive skew in favor of anyone who was a legendary before the merit system was introduced regardless if they are a one-liner shitposter, as can be seen by the hundreds of members who work out at a score of 1001 (1000 airdropped merit, 0 earned merit, same number of activity and posts, all posts meaningless and simply fulfilling bounty requirements).

I mean, I agree, but then you will need to carry around some small external device that is capable of displaying the transaction for you to read and confirming or denying it. If you have to carry around an external device anyway, then what's the point of an implantable chip?

Altcoins not growing has nothing to do with Bitcoin and everything to do with the vast majority of altcoins being trash or scams. These are projects with a market cap of millions or billions of dollars that don't even have a working product. ICOs raising billions of dollars on empty promises. You think they should be worth more?

If you want an altcoin to grow, then make a product that is useful, instead of just slapping "Blockchain" and "ICO" on some trash in order to make easy money.

User: argus312

Plagiarism:

Original:

---

User: andrey1267p

Plagiarism:

Original:

---

User: swam1alyona

Plagiarism:

Original:

---

I can't pin the other 3 down yet, but all these post histories are identical - pages and pages of one line shit posts, followed by a single post that is a couple of paragraphs between the 20th and 22nd of this month, that foserfox has merited. It is clear he is selling posts and a merit to go along with it. Also, given that he's a plagiarist as well as Veleor pointed out, can't we just ban him?

---

Edit:

User: elenka n

Plagiarism:

Original:

And?

It's clearly a velociraptor you heathen! And there are no stars because he ate them, duh.

Breaking news: Busted scammers sometimes leave retaliatory feedback! Forum shocked at this revelation!

All As are B =/= All Bs are A.

Ehh, explain this then:

Question 1:

I usually check their post history in this case. If it's a once off, I let it slide. If copy-pasting articles makes up the majority/all of their posts, I report their most recent one and explain they are a serial spammer. The reports are always marked as "Good", but I don't know if that means the mods delete the post or they ban the user - I've never thought to check.


Question 2:

No, I would not merit them. If you ask me again in a month, and that user has shown a sustained effort over a month or longer to improve their post quality and engage in discussion I may. At the moment, there are just too many newbies itching to go back to their spamming ways as soon as they get that elusive one merit.

It's a massive issue for the manufacturers of medical devices, of which there are many - cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, vagus nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, spinal stimulators, cochlear implants, etc. Many of these patients don't really have a choice about whether or not they get the implant - the alternative is permanent disability or death. They certainly have no control over the type of implant they get and the security systems installed on it.

If you are naive enough to put one of these in your body voluntarily, well, you probably deserve what's coming to you.

Hacking implants already exists: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/31/hacking-risk-recall-pacemakers-patient-death-fears-fda-firmware-update

TL:DR: Half a million cardiac pacemakers (devices implanted under the skin of your chest to control irregular heartbeats) had a security flaw that would have allowed hackers to alter the patient's heartrate and kill them.

Sure, a chip in the finger might be relatively harmless in comparison, but it could easily be used to track your every movement, even your sleeping patterns. Or maybe they could deliberately overheat it?

I work with a pediatrician who refuses to see anti-vax families. Her reasoning is this: Vaccines are one of the most, if not the most, solidly proven medical intervention that exists, with all the scare stories about autism and the like completely and provably fabricated. Vaccines are the absolute foundation of pediatric medicine. The amount of evidence supporting their use is staggering. If the family don't accept something that is so obviously a fact, then they won't accept things that are less clear cut, as much of medicine is. If I can't trust them to be rational, then I want no part in their irrationality.

This principle applies here. The Earth not being flat is one of the most fundamental pieces of scientific understanding on the (spheroid) planet. If you don't accept something that is so obviously a fact, there is no telling what less clear-cut things you won't accept. If you believe that every piece of evidence that shows the Earth is not flat is fabricated, why won't you believe that a blockchain has been hacked, or a transaction isn't valid, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

I completely believe in free speech, and so you are free to spam the forum with your ridiculous ideas. But Vod is equally free to call you out on them. I wouldn't have gone so far as to give you a negative rating, but I agree I wouldn't want to enter in to any dealings with someone so detached from reality. As trust is not moderated, your only hope here is to get Vod removed from DT. Good luck with that.

I would suggest that continuing to spam the reputation board with flat Earth nonsense is not helping anyone.

Thanks for highlighting this.

I've been planning to buy a second hardware wallet for a while now - keep my current Ledger as my main cold storage, and have a second one for taking out and about, on business, etc. I had always just planned to buy another Ledger when I finally get round to it, but this might tip my decision to pick up a Trezor instead. This is exactly the kind of functionality that would be useful in a wallet that I'm using on a day-to-day basis. Need to pay someone in ETH when I'm only holding BTC - no problem.

The KYC is going to be the deal breaker here for me, and so I'll wait to find out what the exchanges are requesting before pulling the trigger on a purchase. The quote "Decentralized exchanges are, of course, being evaluated" is interesting, though.

If you see a duplicate topic, hit the report button and in the comment box include a link to the already existing topic. I do this regularly and the duplicates are almost always removed, it just sometimes takes several hours for a moderator to get round to it because hey, they have lives too.

Lmao. I know I've messed up a couple of times selecting reasons from the drop down box that shows up after you type one or two characters, and hit enter before I realized my mistake. So I've reported a couple posts for "L" or "P". Still got deleted though.  

I've made my peace with 99%.

And every single one of those points can be done without the use of blockchain or a token. Just because something can use blockchain, doesn't mean it should. Projects like this one and 99% of altcoins and tokens, that are using blockchain just because it's a "buzz-word" to get people excited, that have no legitimate need or use for blockchain technology, are simply a marketing gimmick targeted at the naive and the stupid.


No.

Yeah, I since messed up and lost my 100% record by reporting a bunch of "nice project" posts twice, so since then have been much more liberal with my reporting. I've been happy to see that every post I've reported along the lines of these generic one liners has been trashed, and I have also had quite a few topics locked or trashed that were breeding grounds, as you say.

It's just nice to know that we're on the same page.

Such a list already exists here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4412712.0 (ETF beat me to it )

Sure, the list will include many users who only manage one campaign and are never seen again, but negative trust ratings include many users who try to scam once and are never seen again, and the Scam Accusations board includes many users who try to launch one scam ICO and are never seen again. I don't think this is an argument against making such a list.

Even knowing such a list exists might encourage some managers to change their behavior.