But free to give me orders at PM how many and to whom to distribute merit he is in no hurry)) Feel free to do as you like. If you want to send boatloads of merit to certain users, that's fine, but don't expect to be consequence-free. And feel free to continue moving from one issue to another. We haven't seen many deflections recently in Reputation, so this is a beautiful banquet you're providing. |
|
|
|
I do not think these are valid form of collateral. Read the full post of the below quote: What is considered collateral? These are collectibles. I will take the side of StackItUp here and say that it is valid. |
|
|
|
|
You need to make a copy of the document so that you can edit it. Obviously, if it wasn't view-only then you'd have the document deleted or strewn with chaos.
|
|
|
|
...Unlike you, I don't... I answered you at PM. The signature for PM is not counted. Let's see how you write lyrics for free  If LoyceV wanted to sig spam, he wouldn't even enter the Reputation section. That takes way too much reading whereas he could simply go into any of the Bitcoin Discussion/Economics/Trading Discussion/Gambling discussion threads and spew some hot garbage about the newest title of the day.
Please, could anyone give a link to this person's signature campaign? I want to leave a complaint to the manager. (CFNP) Sportsbet.io 🚀 [Signature Campaign] 🚀 [Up to .01 BTC/week]And here's mine. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.0 |
|
|
|
Again this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the rules; or how well they can potentially post. It's about no longer having anything to contribute in regards to discussion anymore, once there was no financial motivation. If the only reason for someone to post in a thread is because they will get paid for it, then no matter what, it's a disingenuous meandering around the forum and if they have no stake in the discussion, then why do you want this user on the forum? It essentially boils down to this: do you want to pay someone to for fake discussions on a regular basis, high post quality notwithstanding?
Even if they have the ability to create high-quality posts, once it becomes difficult because a topic is outside of their field of knowledge or because they're running out of time in the campaign cycle, you will see lower-quality posts. There is no way to force a genuine reply: there's not enough to talk about... and then you do the constant regurgitatory replies to pad it out and make it seem like you're writing a lot, when in reality, all of it could be crunched down to one sentence or even a few words. In fact, if you want an example of this, consider this and the following sentences which merely rephrase what I have already written. The padding of posts constantly hinges on transitioning between the poster's various main points—however general they may be—with marginal insights every time they loop around. Especially when it comes to a topic in the Economics or Trading Discussion boards, you'll see users constantly talk about unpredictability and the price of bitcoin over the years. It's repetitive, and we've already seen it countless times. When a topic reaches post #50 or higher, most of what needs to be said will have been said, but unfortunately campaigners need those pennies and they're going to look back at one of the most recent couple posts... then, they'll quote it and either agree or disagree, making a very marginal point and trying to garner a reply so that they have a thread to return to. It's quite simple, really. Any quote and inquiry is merely an attempt to continue the discussion and thereby continue their signature payments. |
|
|
|
plague just will spread to other parts of forum. You say this, but it's a lot harder to post about Bitcoin than to post about whether you drink tea or coffee. I'm someone who advocates for eliminating signatures AND activity in Off-topic. |
|
|
|
If no one is trading on the exchanges nor trading the coins and tokens the price/volume will most likely remain thesame.
You probably don't understand what volume means. The exchanges will only benefit from the increase in price of their coins if the coins are listed on high volume exchanges. The exchanges trading volumes will remain thesame if nothing has changed for them. Ah, yes... When no one trades on the exchange, the volume remains the same. For that is exactly how volume works. |
|
|
|
The game is risky and most of us have lost some as well.
Why didnt you tell us something then ?
If BTC goes to 3k again, I will start to think llike you, just maybe.
I am telling you now , when it is irrefutable. The past ~3 years confirm it. Sure lose another ~$6000 per bitcoin, by ignoring the reality in front of you.  Are you willing to place a bet on that condition? Whichever comes first, 3k or 30k? |
|
|
|
I request the development of an extension that automatically PMs (or some other intrapersonal method) you a formatted "merit request" for a given post when you press a button. This avoids spam—my first thought was to automatically post to the thread—in a convenient way for people who often run low on sMerit but browse/lurk the forum, and then the various PMs can easily be consolidated into a full post when the user is ready to combine the results.
afraid to forget the post, or uninformed of other options as linked below. This post would have been useful to me a week ago, since I noticed 5+ posts that I wanted to merit but couldn't. Funnily enough, despite having a ChipMixer signature, the lack of sMerit incentivized me to create (quality!) posts more than the payments did. |
|
|
|
|
"The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel."
- Horace Walpole
|
|
|
|
2024-5 for the next. ATH. 3k by the end of November 2019. Put your money where your mouth is. Willing to make a bet? I'm sure plenty of people would go against your "prediction". |
|
|
|
Lol nice 9 month old chart I can also draw lines to match patterns  |
|
|
|
Last Friday, 30410 users had received at least 1 Merit. In total, 460749 Merit had been sent. That's 15.15 Merit on average. I don't think this is a very useful number though  Every statistic is useful... it's just how you approach it.
We can probably model a Pareto distribution when it comes to earned merit and despite what people may like to believe, this is not evidence of any circling. Certainly, not everyone will earn as much as Loyce but we can consider the 75 th to 90 th percentile as that's where most of the (non-extreme) high-quality posters should reside. That might bring a better daily merit number. Even just a guess at 1 merit per day (which is certainly very possible) means that a brand new user will be able to rank up to Legendary by the time they hit the cap. If the question shifts to, "why such a high requirement," then the answer is clearly: " Legendary status should not be given to everyone. It is for those that deserve it." |
|
|
|
Now this is something for the scrapeBots: Of the space of users that have earned 1 or more merit, what is the average merit earned? With that metric, divide by the number of days since they earned their first merit and average the totals.
We could have an estimation for the merit requirements as well.
Definitely not going to be an insane uphill battle considering (with current numbers) each new member would have a little under 34 months to accumulate 0.13975% of all newly-generated merit. This is even discounting any subsequent merit sends (i.e. true sMerit as opposed to source sMerit). At current rates we can make 62 Legendary members each month (in raw merit value) if we truly wanted to. |
|
|
|
Waw! That's really huge step in btc adoption, I hope Mr Trump will not have problem with such great news, because clearly this shows blockchain technology is has a role to play after all, this is certainly the beginning of more adoption, slow and stead we go to the top.
Triumph has nothing to do with US air force endorsement on blockchain use for there job. If the air force see it as necessary, it will go through process, either to the floor of the house. The US is a liberal state. Moreover, whether US or not, others are adopting and using blockchain. Is a technology that won't go away in a long time. Mr. Triumph is going to be in peach. |
|
|
|
When did those posts by Viktor SPB get deleted? It has to be after this situation was brought up, right?
And in that case... why?EDIT: Which ones? I clicked a few in LoyceV's post and they're still there. Oh, no wonder... I put the section on ignore, that's why it showed up as (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored). Never mind. |
|
|
|
maybe sig bans should include a 'x number of posts without a spam / plagiarism infraction' required in addition to the 6 month time period (or w.e it is) to lift the ban. would provide a bit more deterrent to spam / plagiarism, and prevent users from going straight to spamming after the time is up. That's a pretty good idea. Something along the lines of no more than 1 report per 30-50 posts seems appropriate, for 200(?) posts or 40 merit, whichever comes first. It's difficult to create that many posts without getting reported for a spam post if you are, and if the user in question is able to make high-quality posts then that might also show their worth to the forum (the reason they were provisionally unbanned in the first place) Arbitrary numbers of course and there are going to be other stipulations (to prevent merit abuse to circumvent the ban). |
|
|
|
50 members per campaign posting 25 posts each (minimum) equals 1250 posts per week. Not to mention that sometimes only parts of the post are plagiarized so during the initial checking he could think everything is ok when in fact 2 out of the total 20 sentences are copy/pasted.
My question to campaign managers, would you really go through all this hassle? Maybe managers should hire one or two qualified post reviewer (similar to peer review) as a quality controller. Hence, even with the 20-25 post per week, no one will complain about the quality. Stop. We don't need 'post reviewers'. People report posts, yes? I've actually smashed through hundreds of posts in the 777Coin and Bitvest campaigns. And regarding the plagiarism issue: it's simple enough to automate the process. We already have some people who have checked entire post histories for plagiarism, so I don't see why the same cannot be done for a campaign cycle across a few dozen users.
I see a lot of people here taking the piss. We already know, "signatures are a privilege, not a right," yet I see absurd suggestions... under the expectation that signatures will be around for a long time. |
|
|
|
how will CS profit from that if his only income comes from sharing in your profit?
Until that can be answered, everything else is just peripheral noise. Simple. If you profit, he'll ask for a share. If you don't, he didn't risk anything.
It's basically equivalent to having 100% lossback on a gambling site. This should be transparent to anyone considering using his services. You may have a good reason to think this is a raw deal for any possible investor, but any possible investor is free to negotiate terms acceptable to him or her.
I am not vouching for CryptoSparks, and he may turn out to be a scammer. My position is that him offering his bot services does not automatically make him a scammer. I agree... but this is similar to when the whole "bitcoin accelerator" spam took off where they are basically hoping that the users using the method (or believing that they're using the method) are profiting. The difference here is that with an API key a malicious entity can do much, much, more than a 'bitcoin accelerator'. They can enact trades to dump their coins and manipulate the market by wash-trading to inflate volume, creating buy/sell walls, chunking off buy/sell orders, etc.
If the bot is transparent and OS then CryptoSparks will only get a temporary customer. If it is not then you are relying on the trustworthiness and reliability of CryptoSparks. |
|
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is that if you're willing to send out the nano where there's a possibility of someone charging back (i.e. eBay or PayPal) then I don't see the issue with holding it in escrow - that is, a middleman - for the sale of the Litecoins.
If you're skeptical I'd understand. After all, trusting someone random on the forum to hold your funds seems ridiculous but it's no more ridiculous than having someone potentially take your litecoins and then do some buyer protection reversal off PayPal.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
