The fact that this hasn't been implemented might mean it's not that simple to implement on SMF. Apply Occam's razor to all but this (and the "upcoming") forum. There's always an easy solution stuck in the sands of common sense, but it may be buried under the waves of entropy. |
|
|
|
This law is made by poor human Craig is soon to be a very poor human. |
|
|
|
|
These suggestions fall on deaf ears: the greatest – or perhaps, worst – cases of bounty management originate from the users most unwilling to ameliorate these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Do you think you could build an algorithm to score based on preset rules like these? The canvas of language cannot be captured by that of rigid means: quality hooks itself around the mastery of semantic and syntactical manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
Off-topic deserves a relabeling to "Worthless drivel"
Chances are, you could run a spinner game and report the last five consecutive pages of a random thread, seeing most of them land in the good bucket.
|
|
|
|
Imagine the extra workload for the admins then. As if they don't have enough on their plate to scan for shitposts and bs and if this was implemented then sorting wtb/wts threads by reading their content would just make things so hectic. if title does not contain "WTS" or "WTB" or "WTH" then remove
else end |
|
|
|
|
Newbies/Jr. Members' posts should not bump a thread back to the top.
Users with ranks higher than the above should be able to bump a thread N times per 24h based on some arbitrary criterion (e.g. merit, activity)
|
|
|
|
The tumors are not the cause, they are the symptom. Stop treating the symptoms and address the cause, or just keep perpetually cutting out tumors. Your call.  Whether clandestine or not, bickering leads to the same result. |
|
|
|
|
Ah... for the winds of entropy have once again braced themselves against thine skin, Reputation, we so too embrace the winds to push this thread back to the top.
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that the more merits you have the stronger your DT votes are in groups of 250 merits. They're all equal and follow a "who needs it most" sieve from what I recall. You are merely entitled to more 250-bin votes for DT elections. |
|
|
|
WINNERS OF THE AUCTION!
kebab77 @ 0.45
kebab77 @ 0.45
rsincognito @ 0.44
rsincognito @ 0.44
lebnor @ 0.29 Even if you can bid lower than yourself, you shouldn't be able to bid lower than other people: 1 @ .75
1 @ .72
1 @ 0.8
1 @ 0.43
Current status of the auction:
kebab77 @ 0.80
rsincognito @ 0.75
rsincognito @ 0.72
lebnor @ 0.48
kebab77 @ 0.43
1 @ 0.5
1 @ 0.43
|
|
|
|
The limit only has sense in case of 0 Bitcoin value, at the beginnings. This is only spam protection where it costs 0 to send. This is somewhat true if you want to restrict adoption of node hosting, but what would have stopped users from mining -> tx spamming in the beginning? A larger block size would make it more difficult for users to bloat the network, wouldn't it? After all, that's what you want, right? Now it will be removed to enable true open competition between all the network participants.
Any limit / rule you introduce has a dictatorship / comunism like origin / effect and is strong sign of central power (like a dev team + PoSM has). Perhaps, but by increasing the block size, you also centralize the nodes for Bitcoin. Then, they can arbitrarily dictate the broadcasted transactions, they can monitor transactions and track your information... |
|
|
|
The scaling by block capacity was always a no brainer. Then why ever limit the block size? Hmm? |
|
|
|
Please use the edit button instead of double-posting.
What did you use to fix the broken piece? |
|
|
|
Starting bid : 0.000btc
Min bid. : 0.002btc
Shipping costs, whatever. I know most won't bid due to the high cost thereof but if someone out there does want it, then that's up to them to decide. The auction reminds me of the other ones with reserve prices. If someone wants to pay 0.065+ BTC for the piece... by all means. |
|
|
|
is there a million bitcoins at Wright - is unknown, but the fact that they were with he - 100%
he either lost his keys or came up with the illusion of Fund to protect himself from burglars Craig did not have the million bitcoins because I am satoshi. Prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
I think there's a question we have to ask these people! If you were supposed to show up one day, why did you hide your identity until now? That question needs better phrasing. Regardless of the duration, the question is applicable. Why didn't you do X until now? If I had never eaten a carrot until this week, what is the point of asking, "why haven't you eaten carrots until now?"  |
|
|
|
|
Why would he go to such lengths of creating contrived measures in order to verify his history rather than going to the simple route? Why act in such a way that makes it seem like he's lying countless times, even going to the lengths of trying to sue others, even going to the lengths of fabricating evidence?
Either he's trying to do some long-winded swindle which is lost on anyone who isn't a diehard CSW fan... or we can apply Occam's razor and pragmatically assume that he is, in fact, not satoshi.
|
|
|
|
Nope, such big block doesn't change how it all works together. I guess you're right then. Where are my 1TB blocks? If we're to be prepared for the future, we need to scale! Immediately!
And... why was the original limit set at the value it was? Why wasn't it larger? We should have started scaling back in '09, not '17! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
